bin Laden transcript
September 7, 2007 1:54 PM Subscribe
Transcript of the most recent Osama bin Laden tape. [pdf]
Likes: Noam Chomsky, Michael Scheuer, Jews, Jesus, Mary
Dislikes: the Holocaust, Bush, corporations, global warming
Likes: Noam Chomsky, Michael Scheuer, Jews, Jesus, Mary
Dislikes: the Holocaust, Bush, corporations, global warming
Is it because they did WTC?
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on September 7, 2007 [8 favorites]
posted by dersins at 1:57 PM on September 7, 2007 [8 favorites]
I guess it isn't so much pro-jews as "Hey we don't burn anyone alive, not even jews."
posted by ND¢ at 1:58 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by ND¢ at 1:58 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
So much for him being dead, huh, fuckwits? (you know who you are)
Why do I still have to see this asshole's face on my tv? Why isn't his head on a fucking spike in a wall somewhere? Jesus H tapdancing christ.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 1:59 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Why do I still have to see this asshole's face on my tv? Why isn't his head on a fucking spike in a wall somewhere? Jesus H tapdancing christ.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 1:59 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
The transcript can only be read as a PDF of a tiny, blurry mimeograph? Really?
posted by interrobang at 2:01 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by interrobang at 2:01 PM on September 7, 2007
This guy puts out more tapes than Steely Dan!
posted by porn in the woods at 2:02 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by porn in the woods at 2:02 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
Anyone else starting to get an eerie feeling that there is no Bin Laden? He's just an actor who shows up whenever Bush's Iraq policy needs a boost.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007 [14 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007 [14 favorites]
Funny... I never thought of Osama as being a JFK conspiracy theorist. What's his member # here?
posted by psmealey at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by psmealey at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007
Says who?
posted by lucia__is__dada at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by lucia__is__dada at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007
I like the part where he said the policies of the administration are under the influence and control of the mujahedeen. It's almost like he's the Emperor goading Luke to kill Vader and join the dark side, except this time it isn't going to end with dancing muppets.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Pastabagel at 2:05 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Osama Bin, Paris Hilton, your mother : what's the difference ? They all are busting your balls !
posted by elpapacito at 2:06 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by elpapacito at 2:06 PM on September 7, 2007
I've been on the fence about converting to Islam for a while now, but this tape cinches it.
posted by mazola at 2:07 PM on September 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by mazola at 2:07 PM on September 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I think Osama watches entirely too much teevee.
posted by psmealey at 2:09 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by psmealey at 2:09 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
A coincidence that this shows almost at the same time that bush asks for support for the war on terror on the Apec summit?
posted by edmz at 2:09 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by edmz at 2:09 PM on September 7, 2007
Metafilter: this time it isn't going to end with dancing muppets
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:11 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:11 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
this time it isn't going to end with dancing muppets
But it would be cool to have the ghosts of Cheney and Bush standing mute at the back.
posted by mrnutty at 2:14 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
But it would be cool to have the ghosts of Cheney and Bush standing mute at the back.
posted by mrnutty at 2:14 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
He's just an actor who shows up whenever Bush's Iraq policy needs a boost.
Or people need a reminder of what a miserable failure the Bush administration has been in taking out the primary player in their "war on terror," having taken their eyes off the prize by shifting focus, resources, etc. to a capricious war in Iraq.
posted by ericb at 2:16 PM on September 7, 2007
Or people need a reminder of what a miserable failure the Bush administration has been in taking out the primary player in their "war on terror," having taken their eyes off the prize by shifting focus, resources, etc. to a capricious war in Iraq.
posted by ericb at 2:16 PM on September 7, 2007
this time it isn't going to end with dancing muppets
But it would be cool to have the ghosts ofCheney and Bush Statler and Waldorf standing mute at the back.
Fixed that for you.
posted by dersins at 2:17 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
But it would be cool to have the ghosts of
Fixed that for you.
posted by dersins at 2:17 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Wow. Talk about starting from the same thesis and winding up at a wildly different conclusion. I actually agree with a number of his critiques of the current American capitalist-democratic system in practice, but then immediately remember that what he wants to replace it with is the system that gave us Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
I think we'll stick with our current problems. Thanks anyway.
posted by rusty at 2:18 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think we'll stick with our current problems. Thanks anyway.
posted by rusty at 2:18 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
A coincidence that this shows almost at the same time that bush asks for support for the war on terror on the Apec summit?
I thought Bush was at the OPEC summit.
posted by homunculus at 2:18 PM on September 7, 2007
I thought Bush was at the OPEC summit.
posted by homunculus at 2:18 PM on September 7, 2007
Metafilter: this time it isn't going to end with dancing muppets
What about curious furries?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:20 PM on September 7, 2007
What about curious furries?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:20 PM on September 7, 2007
A coincidence that this shows almost at the same time that bush asks for support for the war on terror on the Apec summit?
And Bush thinks he's at the OPEC Summit | video.
posted by ericb at 2:20 PM on September 7, 2007
And Bush thinks he's at the OPEC Summit | video.
posted by ericb at 2:20 PM on September 7, 2007
but then immediately remember that what he wants to replace it with is the system that gave us Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
Has he, or any of Al Qaeda, ever said that they wanted to overthrow the west? I'd always thought these guys mainly want to stop the US to quit meddling in the Middle East, and for Israel to pull out of the occupied territories.
posted by Flashman at 2:23 PM on September 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
Has he, or any of Al Qaeda, ever said that they wanted to overthrow the west? I'd always thought these guys mainly want to stop the US to quit meddling in the Middle East, and for Israel to pull out of the occupied territories.
posted by Flashman at 2:23 PM on September 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
A coincidence that this shows almost at the same time that bush asks for support for the war on terror on the Apec summit?
posted by edmz at 5:09 PM on September 7
Is it any coincidence that this shows up at the same time the US air force announces it will ground all fighters and bombers on the 14th? /conspiracy
You have to read this from the perspective of a neocon or Bush (who is too stupid to be a neocon himself) to appreciate it.
Basically, bin laden has defined the conflict in terms that make it impossible for Bush to withdraw without they themselves feeling like its a loss and a retreat.
The reality is, that the president could declare the war canceled, that given domestic issues the liberty and propserity of Iraqis is not a priority compared to the liberty and prosperity of Americans, thank you and good night. Sure there'd be arguing and kvetching over whether it is a retreat or not, but who cares, it's rhetorical cover that let's the troops come home.
Instead, like I've said before, the macho right wing in the US and the radical islamic fundamentalists are working from the same playbook, and the right wing doesn't want to leave until it "wins" whatever the hell winning is.
Personally, I don't think bin laden believes any of this. He knows that on first read a lot of americans will find it difficult to argue with him on the corporate takeover of the US, and beyond the "you really would be happier if you coverted to islam" soft sell, he doesn't really sound hateful in this. He his hateful of course, (he's behind 9-11 and therefore must be bricked).
Of course Bush invaded a country under false pretenses and killed a lot more than 3000 people... this argument gets harder and harder every year.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:26 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by edmz at 5:09 PM on September 7
Is it any coincidence that this shows up at the same time the US air force announces it will ground all fighters and bombers on the 14th? /conspiracy
You have to read this from the perspective of a neocon or Bush (who is too stupid to be a neocon himself) to appreciate it.
Basically, bin laden has defined the conflict in terms that make it impossible for Bush to withdraw without they themselves feeling like its a loss and a retreat.
The reality is, that the president could declare the war canceled, that given domestic issues the liberty and propserity of Iraqis is not a priority compared to the liberty and prosperity of Americans, thank you and good night. Sure there'd be arguing and kvetching over whether it is a retreat or not, but who cares, it's rhetorical cover that let's the troops come home.
Instead, like I've said before, the macho right wing in the US and the radical islamic fundamentalists are working from the same playbook, and the right wing doesn't want to leave until it "wins" whatever the hell winning is.
Personally, I don't think bin laden believes any of this. He knows that on first read a lot of americans will find it difficult to argue with him on the corporate takeover of the US, and beyond the "you really would be happier if you coverted to islam" soft sell, he doesn't really sound hateful in this. He his hateful of course, (he's behind 9-11 and therefore must be bricked).
Of course Bush invaded a country under false pretenses and killed a lot more than 3000 people... this argument gets harder and harder every year.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:26 PM on September 7, 2007
Fixed that for you.
I can't wait till this cliche dies. Let me fix this, and just for you. You didn't "fix" it and you didn't do it for him/her.
posted by stbalbach at 2:27 PM on September 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
I can't wait till this cliche dies. Let me fix this, and just for you. You didn't "fix" it and you didn't do it for him/her.
posted by stbalbach at 2:27 PM on September 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
Has he, or any of Al Qaeda, ever said that they wanted to overthrow the west? I'd always thought these guys mainly want to stop the US to quit meddling in the Middle East, and for Israel to pull out of the occupied territories.
posted by Flashman at 5:23 PM on September 7
He has also said he wants Spain out of, well parts of Spain, and wants to restore the Ottoman Empire to its former glory. He's said a lot of nutty things. It just so happnes he appears to be getting less nutty just as our guy slips into senility.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:29 PM on September 7, 2007
It just so happnes he appears to be getting less nutty just as our guy slips into senility.
I like to think that, while in hiding, he has engaged in a lot of serious introspection and has become a philosopher. It's possible; he's certainly a very smart man.
posted by nasreddin at 2:32 PM on September 7, 2007
I like to think that, while in hiding, he has engaged in a lot of serious introspection and has become a philosopher. It's possible; he's certainly a very smart man.
posted by nasreddin at 2:32 PM on September 7, 2007
The CNN headline:
"Bin Laden tape reportedly criticizes Democrats, corporations"
Comedy gold.
posted by googly at 2:33 PM on September 7, 2007
"Bin Laden tape reportedly criticizes Democrats, corporations"
Comedy gold.
posted by googly at 2:33 PM on September 7, 2007
Old news. I read this transcript a few days ago:
But again, we are in a struggle. Our enemies have made their choice. They have shown that choice. They have shown it in bombing and murdering innocent people for their own ideological purposes. We have made a choice, which is to fight back. These are not people with whom one can compromise. These are not people with whom one can negotiate. They take advantage of the innocent. They pray on the weak. When you have an enemy that prays on the weak takes the lives of innocents, you have but one choice and that is to fight. The question of how we fight and at what levels we fight ought to be one of how we are going to win this historic battle.
Oh, hang on. That was Condi Rice.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:33 PM on September 7, 2007 [24 favorites]
But again, we are in a struggle. Our enemies have made their choice. They have shown that choice. They have shown it in bombing and murdering innocent people for their own ideological purposes. We have made a choice, which is to fight back. These are not people with whom one can compromise. These are not people with whom one can negotiate. They take advantage of the innocent. They pray on the weak. When you have an enemy that prays on the weak takes the lives of innocents, you have but one choice and that is to fight. The question of how we fight and at what levels we fight ought to be one of how we are going to win this historic battle.
Oh, hang on. That was Condi Rice.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:33 PM on September 7, 2007 [24 favorites]
In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy draw up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.Vietnam War ended April 30, 1975; Donald Rumsfeld became the Secretary of Defense November 20, 1975.
And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qalda wasn't present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:36 PM on September 7, 2007
Comedy gold
I know! "Reportedly" ?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:37 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I know! "Reportedly" ?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:37 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Osama bin laden = Banana do smile
posted by Totally Zanzibarin' Ya at 2:38 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by Totally Zanzibarin' Ya at 2:38 PM on September 7, 2007
Anyone else starting to get an eerie feeling that there is no Bin Laden? He's just an actor who shows up whenever Bush's Iraq policy needs a boost.
The timing certainly indicates it. And Bush and the entire administration have been his biggest boosters and vice versa. Bush made Al Qaeda a global franchise.
Related but probably not: AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."
posted by amberglow at 2:38 PM on September 7, 2007
The timing certainly indicates it. And Bush and the entire administration have been his biggest boosters and vice versa. Bush made Al Qaeda a global franchise.
Related but probably not: AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."
posted by amberglow at 2:38 PM on September 7, 2007
Microscopic terrorists?!?
*washes hands furiously with disinfectant*
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:40 PM on September 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
*washes hands furiously with disinfectant*
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:40 PM on September 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
Man, that got weird at the end: "You know, I really am concerned for your welfare. You should think about converting for your own sake. We're not all that different - see, your dude is in my Qu'ran. "
posted by desjardins at 2:40 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by desjardins at 2:40 PM on September 7, 2007
Fixed that for you.
I can't wait till this cliche dies. Let me fix this, and just for you. You didn't "fix" it and you didn't do it for him/her.
YM "I feel cranky today." HTH.
posted by dersins at 2:42 PM on September 7, 2007
I can't wait till this cliche dies. Let me fix this, and just for you. You didn't "fix" it and you didn't do it for him/her.
YM "I feel cranky today." HTH.
posted by dersins at 2:42 PM on September 7, 2007
When the fuck did they scan that PDF, 1997?
posted by chlorus at 2:50 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by chlorus at 2:50 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Ubi, that totally worked for me. bowled me over. nice one.
posted by fcummins at 3:00 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by fcummins at 3:00 PM on September 7, 2007
Al Qaeda is cool and everything, but I still prefer Judean People's Front. Or maybe the People's Front of Judea.
posted by digiFramph at 3:02 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by digiFramph at 3:02 PM on September 7, 2007
The CNN headline:
"Bin Laden tape reportedly criticizes Democrats, corporations"
HOLY mf-ing shit- I thought you had made that up.
Get me out of this country.
posted by wfc123 at 3:04 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Bin Laden tape reportedly criticizes Democrats, corporations"
HOLY mf-ing shit- I thought you had made that up.
Get me out of this country.
posted by wfc123 at 3:04 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
FOX NEWS ALERT: Bin laden encourages Americans to vote for Hillary, have abortions, practice reverse psychology.
posted by Avenger at 3:06 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Avenger at 3:06 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Anyone else starting to get an eerie feeling that there is no Bin Laden? He's just an actor who shows up whenever Bush's Iraq policy needs a boost.
Nah, it's bin Laden, but he genuinely does want to support Bush in any way possible. After all, Bush is the best recruitment poster the Taliban could ask for.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:08 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Nah, it's bin Laden, but he genuinely does want to support Bush in any way possible. After all, Bush is the best recruitment poster the Taliban could ask for.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:08 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Or Al Qaeda, now that I think about ti.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:09 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:09 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm trying to figure out why they are using such a crappy PDF. It would take someone no time at all to transcribe it into a nice and readable electronic format. Does the fact that it's crooked and grainy give it more street-cred or something?
posted by quin at 3:10 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by quin at 3:10 PM on September 7, 2007
If this is legit it's an interesting foil to the neo-con agenda and a pretty sly political play. I suspect it might be cherry-picking line items from the Anti-Bush Administration Handbook to try to drum up sympathy. It's not unlike so much other political speechifying that plays loose with facts, makes emotional appeals to its base and paints itself as the champion of justice.
For those of us who want this war to end, he's sure not doing us any favors. It'll just be more "You're either with us or with the terrorists!" and "Need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here!" forever and ever amen. But then, that's probably what he wants. Fuck! In terms of efficacy, having a bunch of Kalachnikovs and a HandiCam is really making my 2008 vote look like ribbon on a turd.
Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky is wondering why he hears the vague sound of someone munching on Chee-tos and typing every time he talks on his phone.
posted by krippledkonscious at 3:13 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
For those of us who want this war to end, he's sure not doing us any favors. It'll just be more "You're either with us or with the terrorists!" and "Need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here!" forever and ever amen. But then, that's probably what he wants. Fuck! In terms of efficacy, having a bunch of Kalachnikovs and a HandiCam is really making my 2008 vote look like ribbon on a turd.
Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky is wondering why he hears the vague sound of someone munching on Chee-tos and typing every time he talks on his phone.
posted by krippledkonscious at 3:13 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Once again, anti-war = al qaeda.
That is the War Party's message. These people must be stopped.
Who is going to be in D.C. on Sept. 15 for the impeach Bush rally?
posted by chlorus at 3:16 PM on September 7, 2007
That is the War Party's message. These people must be stopped.
Who is going to be in D.C. on Sept. 15 for the impeach Bush rally?
posted by chlorus at 3:16 PM on September 7, 2007
having a bunch of Kalachnikovs and a HandiCam is really making my 2008 vote look like ribbon on a turd.
or a giant douche.
posted by digiFramph at 3:18 PM on September 7, 2007
or a giant douche.
posted by digiFramph at 3:18 PM on September 7, 2007
Nope, sorry about that, that's an old one.
(Keeps Googling)
posted by beagle at 3:25 PM on September 7, 2007
(Keeps Googling)
posted by beagle at 3:25 PM on September 7, 2007
Fuck that guy.
posted by empath at 3:39 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by empath at 3:39 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
After further reflection: Seriously, fuck that guy.
posted by empath at 3:39 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 3:39 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I can't wait till this cliche Bin Laden dies. Let me fix this, and just for you. You didn't "fix" it and you didn't do it for him/her.
There, fixed the derail for all of us.
posted by davejay at 3:57 PM on September 7, 2007
There, fixed the derail for all of us.
posted by davejay at 3:57 PM on September 7, 2007
HTML transcript from Canadian newspaper site.
posted by desjardins at 4:07 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by desjardins at 4:07 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
The CNN headline:
"Bin Laden tape reportedly criticizes Democrats, corporations"
If they based that headline on the bin Laden quote they use in the story, then it's obvious that noone at CNN is capable of parsing a fucking English sentence. bin Laden is criticizing corporations and their undue political influence, not the Democrats.
I am beginning to doubt that the collective IQ of our leaders and the mainstream media would surpass their collective ages. They are obviously idiots.* Unfortunately, so is a large percentage of their customers.
*or they are evil with an agenda. But I try to never credit malice, when stupidity suffices.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:09 PM on September 7, 2007
"Bin Laden tape reportedly criticizes Democrats, corporations"
If they based that headline on the bin Laden quote they use in the story, then it's obvious that noone at CNN is capable of parsing a fucking English sentence. bin Laden is criticizing corporations and their undue political influence, not the Democrats.
I am beginning to doubt that the collective IQ of our leaders and the mainstream media would surpass their collective ages. They are obviously idiots.* Unfortunately, so is a large percentage of their customers.
*or they are evil with an agenda. But I try to never credit malice, when stupidity suffices.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:09 PM on September 7, 2007
In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representatives of these corporations in the white house insist on not observing the Kyoto accord.
What's really weird here is that, had I seen this as a MeFi comment, I wouldn't have even batted an eye.
posted by quin at 4:12 PM on September 7, 2007
What's really weird here is that, had I seen this as a MeFi comment, I wouldn't have even batted an eye.
posted by quin at 4:12 PM on September 7, 2007
Well, Cat Stevens is convinced.
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:16 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:16 PM on September 7, 2007
Quoting an email I just received, "it's either a photoshop or a fake beard -- I was really struck this morning by his fake eyebrows as well. They're far more arched than they were three years ago, something that just don't happen by itself. So either Usama's bin Metrosexualizing or he has on some pasties."
Before. After. No, really, after.
posted by nickyskye at 4:16 PM on September 7, 2007
Before. After. No, really, after.
posted by nickyskye at 4:16 PM on September 7, 2007
What's really weird here is that, had I seen this as a MeFi comment, I wouldn't have even batted an eye.
Yeah that is almost exactly what Fox News is going to be saying about this to millions of people for the next few days. Just substitute "Mefi comment" with "Democratic talking point."
posted by ND¢ at 4:18 PM on September 7, 2007
Yeah that is almost exactly what Fox News is going to be saying about this to millions of people for the next few days. Just substitute "Mefi comment" with "Democratic talking point."
posted by ND¢ at 4:18 PM on September 7, 2007
Here's something I'd really like more info about- where do these tapes come from, and how do the news media get them? I have heard that it is one or two American companies which always find them (supposedly Jihad websites which are no longer online) and report them to the media... then they are picked up and clips go out. They never seem to show up on youtube, etc. How does the whole distribution system work? I don't get it.
posted by cell divide at 4:20 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by cell divide at 4:20 PM on September 7, 2007
MetaFilter: Fixed that for you. I can't wait till this cliche dies.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:23 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:23 PM on September 7, 2007
If he's genuinely concerned about the US's system, why is he always trying to blow it up? Its like when Lex Luthor suddenly becomes friendly to Superman. Supes, he's just fucking with you.
Funny how he suddenly takes on the tone of an embittered lefty who is sick of the democrats. If his tactic is to bring about an worldwide Islamic revolution, its going to start with the far-left and the universities, not in the sticks. Winning over these people is the only way he's going to spread Islam in the West.
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:23 PM on September 7, 2007
Funny how he suddenly takes on the tone of an embittered lefty who is sick of the democrats. If his tactic is to bring about an worldwide Islamic revolution, its going to start with the far-left and the universities, not in the sticks. Winning over these people is the only way he's going to spread Islam in the West.
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:23 PM on September 7, 2007
Flashman wrote (and several people favorited): Has he, or any of Al Qaeda, ever said that they wanted to overthrow the west? I'd always thought these guys mainly want to stop the US to quit meddling in the Middle East, and for Israel to pull out of the occupied territories.
Well, he wants to kill every single American. Doesn't that count as wanting to overthrow the US? Presumably he would want us to be replaced with an Islamic state after we were killed.
I mean, what is your point--that he has rationalized these goals with specific objections to US policy that are reasonable in and of themselves, such as his objection to the presence of US bases in Middle Eastern countries? Why should I believe that that's anything more than window dressing for his real objectives? And do you honestly believe that if we rectified his stated grievances, he wouldn't just move the goalposts by coming up with new grievances so as to continue to rationalize his goal of destroying the US?
(I'm simplifying this a bit to "the US" whereas you were referring to "the West," but similar statements from bin Laden about the West in general should be pretty easily Googleable.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:27 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well, he wants to kill every single American. Doesn't that count as wanting to overthrow the US? Presumably he would want us to be replaced with an Islamic state after we were killed.
I mean, what is your point--that he has rationalized these goals with specific objections to US policy that are reasonable in and of themselves, such as his objection to the presence of US bases in Middle Eastern countries? Why should I believe that that's anything more than window dressing for his real objectives? And do you honestly believe that if we rectified his stated grievances, he wouldn't just move the goalposts by coming up with new grievances so as to continue to rationalize his goal of destroying the US?
(I'm simplifying this a bit to "the US" whereas you were referring to "the West," but similar statements from bin Laden about the West in general should be pretty easily Googleable.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:27 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Here's something I'd really like more info about- where do these tapes come from, and how do the news media get them? I have heard that it is one or two American companies which always find them (supposedly Jihad websites which are no longer online) and report them to the media... then they are picked up and clips go out. They never seem to show up on youtube, etc. How does the whole distribution system work? I don't get it.
It used to be that they were hand-delivered to Al Jazeera and other news orgs in the region, but nowadays i think they ftp them to those orgs (and probably to our front orgs too, like Alhurra TV , and of course don't hide it--they want these messages to get out--and Bush does too.
Then the timing is all up to our government--they never release it the day they get it---and they had already teased it in the news earlier in the week. This is part of the "Petreas Report" and 9/11 anniversary. The GOP has already said that they're running on "Terrorism" so this helps there too.
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on September 7, 2007
It used to be that they were hand-delivered to Al Jazeera and other news orgs in the region, but nowadays i think they ftp them to those orgs (and probably to our front orgs too, like Alhurra TV , and of course don't hide it--they want these messages to get out--and Bush does too.
Then the timing is all up to our government--they never release it the day they get it---and they had already teased it in the news earlier in the week. This is part of the "Petreas Report" and 9/11 anniversary. The GOP has already said that they're running on "Terrorism" so this helps there too.
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on September 7, 2007
Bin Laden is absolutely right about how compromised the Congressional Dems are (but it's not just money: it's that winning seats in 08 is easier if we're still in Iraq--an abhorrent, amoral purely political calculation)
posted by amberglow at 4:33 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by amberglow at 4:33 PM on September 7, 2007
An ABC article speculates why the false beard.
Another article: "The US government is analysing videotape that appears to show Osama bin Laden in a false beard, marking the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
Quoting a friend: "Furthermore, the report indicates that the theme of ObL's lecture is martyrdom, which has been the recurring theme of As-Sahab's messaging campaign this summer. Cannot be a happy sign. It began with the training camp graduation video released to ABC News back in May, and crested with the 14 July "Scent of Heaven" feature on martyrs that included an undated fifty-second clip of ObL and the 5 Aug feature, "Let's Live Honorably or Die as Martyrs," that focused on Al Hafez
Othman and his 2006 attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi. The awaited video presumably is the peak of the campaign.
Last year's theme was strategic and seemed geared toward strengthening aQ's consolidation. As-Sahab released the two-part "Manhattan Raid" documentary and a series of videos that campaigned against moderate Muslims, whom Zawahiri in his "Hot Issues" video called "religion-trading charlatans, defeatists, and collaborators." This year's thematic focus on martyrdom appears to be more operational and less strategic. Perhaps this is reading too much into this, but it seems also to be carried through in the marketing collateral they produce (the animated gif banners) to promote upcoming videos. "Let's Live Honorably or Die as Martyrs" was promoted four days in advance back in August with the promise, "Wait for the Big Surprise." The video we now await promises "a special gift to be delivered on the blessed day of the Manhattan Raid."
posted by nickyskye at 4:40 PM on September 7, 2007
Another article: "The US government is analysing videotape that appears to show Osama bin Laden in a false beard, marking the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
Quoting a friend: "Furthermore, the report indicates that the theme of ObL's lecture is martyrdom, which has been the recurring theme of As-Sahab's messaging campaign this summer. Cannot be a happy sign. It began with the training camp graduation video released to ABC News back in May, and crested with the 14 July "Scent of Heaven" feature on martyrs that included an undated fifty-second clip of ObL and the 5 Aug feature, "Let's Live Honorably or Die as Martyrs," that focused on Al Hafez
Othman and his 2006 attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi. The awaited video presumably is the peak of the campaign.
Last year's theme was strategic and seemed geared toward strengthening aQ's consolidation. As-Sahab released the two-part "Manhattan Raid" documentary and a series of videos that campaigned against moderate Muslims, whom Zawahiri in his "Hot Issues" video called "religion-trading charlatans, defeatists, and collaborators." This year's thematic focus on martyrdom appears to be more operational and less strategic. Perhaps this is reading too much into this, but it seems also to be carried through in the marketing collateral they produce (the animated gif banners) to promote upcoming videos. "Let's Live Honorably or Die as Martyrs" was promoted four days in advance back in August with the promise, "Wait for the Big Surprise." The video we now await promises "a special gift to be delivered on the blessed day of the Manhattan Raid."
posted by nickyskye at 4:40 PM on September 7, 2007
Shit, this is definitely fake. The question now is, is it al-Qaeda trying to pretend he's still alive? Or is it the Bush administration planting a propaganda video? I'm inclined to agree with amberglow and vote for the latter.
posted by nasreddin at 4:41 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by nasreddin at 4:41 PM on September 7, 2007
We know about Craig but what does OBL do for sex in the mountains of Pakistan? See: it does make you nutty if not deaf. Thoreau, similarly isolated, gave it up, saying: this is bullshit. I need some ass. If a zillion bucks can't get him, perhaps Paris Hilton can offer a taste to bring him in.
posted by Postroad at 4:45 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by Postroad at 4:45 PM on September 7, 2007
I would say at this point that Bush/GOP needs him alive more than AQ does. They're established now all over the world, they say.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on September 7, 2007
see, your dude is in my Qu'ran
MY KURAN HAZ YR JEEBUS LOL
posted by jonp72 at 4:47 PM on September 7, 2007
MY KURAN HAZ YR JEEBUS LOL
posted by jonp72 at 4:47 PM on September 7, 2007
Remember when OBL appeared two days before the 2004 presidential election?
This would be the same bullshit. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.
Fuck Bush. Fuck Osama and his fake beard. The two are one in my mind. Fuckheads. Both.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:47 PM on September 7, 2007
This would be the same bullshit. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.
Fuck Bush. Fuck Osama and his fake beard. The two are one in my mind. Fuckheads. Both.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:47 PM on September 7, 2007
This is exactly perfect--from NYT blog: Regarding the new videotape of Emmanuel Goldstein, I mean, Snowball, that is, Osama bin Laden, I have just one question:
Was the tape produced at Langley or in the White House basement?
posted by amberglow at 4:51 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Was the tape produced at Langley or in the White House basement?
posted by amberglow at 4:51 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Osama is Bush's beard.
posted by rokusan at 4:53 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by rokusan at 4:53 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
maybe we should ask our "allies" the Saudis? In Princes’ Pockets
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on September 7, 2007
"Vietnam War ended April 30, 1975; Donald Rumsfeld became the Secretary of Defense November 20, 1975."
Osama, you fucking moron. How is anyone going to believe anything you say now?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:57 PM on September 7, 2007
Osama, you fucking moron. How is anyone going to believe anything you say now?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:57 PM on September 7, 2007
Has he, or any of Al Qaeda, ever said that they wanted to overthrow the west?
He wants us all to convert to Islam. Kind of amounts to the same thing, from his point of view.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:01 PM on September 7, 2007
He wants us all to convert to Islam. Kind of amounts to the same thing, from his point of view.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:01 PM on September 7, 2007
That was a fast Godwin.
posted by idiotfactory at 5:04 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by idiotfactory at 5:04 PM on September 7, 2007
Wait a sec, details about Rumsfeld on Wikipedia:
"Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 — his fourth term — to serve in the Nixon administration as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969–1970); named Counselor to the President in December 1970, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program; and member of the President's Cabinet (1971–1972).
In 1971 President Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld "at least Rummy is tough enough" and "He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."[16] In February 1973, Rumsfeld left Washington to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium. He served as the United States' Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Planning Committee, and the Nuclear Planning Group. In this capacity, he represented the United States in wide-ranging military and diplomatic matters.
In August, 1974, he was called back to Washington to serve as transition chairman for the new president, Gerald R. Ford. He had been Ford's confidant since their days in the U.S. House when Ford was House minority leader. Later in Ford's presidency, Rumsfeld became White House Chief of Staff (1974–1975); and the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense (1975–1977)."
posted by nickyskye at 5:11 PM on September 7, 2007
"Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 — his fourth term — to serve in the Nixon administration as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, Assistant to the President, and a member of the President's Cabinet (1969–1970); named Counselor to the President in December 1970, Director of the Economic Stabilization Program; and member of the President's Cabinet (1971–1972).
In 1971 President Nixon was recorded saying about Rumsfeld "at least Rummy is tough enough" and "He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."[16] In February 1973, Rumsfeld left Washington to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium. He served as the United States' Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Planning Committee, and the Nuclear Planning Group. In this capacity, he represented the United States in wide-ranging military and diplomatic matters.
In August, 1974, he was called back to Washington to serve as transition chairman for the new president, Gerald R. Ford. He had been Ford's confidant since their days in the U.S. House when Ford was House minority leader. Later in Ford's presidency, Rumsfeld became White House Chief of Staff (1974–1975); and the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense (1975–1977)."
posted by nickyskye at 5:11 PM on September 7, 2007
Bin Laden seems a little incoherent here. Is he just trying to show that he might still be relevant? It's a mixture of liberal lefty marxist crap, conspiracy theory, and strict Koran construction. In the first couple of paragraphs it could have been a MeFi screed (or Kos or etc.) with some stuff that might have at least been mildly coherent and appealed at least a segment of the US audience, but then it just went all batty, and it doesn't seem to be a screed directed to the extreme Islam base either. What gives? There are lots of juicy bits in there that could make for a great al Qaeda propaganda message, but then he throws in all that loopy crap to make him look like some cheap 9-11 conspiracy kook. I think he ought to hire Karl Rove. I hear he's available and taking offers.
posted by caddis at 5:12 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by caddis at 5:12 PM on September 7, 2007
and more:
"During this period, he oversaw the transition to an all-volunteer military and, although he supported the Ford administration's efforts at détente, Rumsfeld sought to reverse the gradual decline in the defense budget and to build up U.S. strategic and conventional forces. He asserted, along with Team B, that trends in comparative U.S.-Soviet military strength had not favored the United States for 15 to 20 years and that, if continued, they "would have the effect of injecting a fundamental instability in the world.
Secretary Rumsfeld, seated at the Cabinet table, laughing with President Gerald Ford in 1975.
Secretary Rumsfeld, seated at the Cabinet table, laughing with President Gerald Ford in 1975.
In 1977, Rumsfeld was awarded the nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
"Rumsfeld was a founder and active member of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank dedicated to overthrowing Saddam Hussein with military force. On January 29, 1998, he signed a PNAC letter calling for President Bill Clinton to implement "regime change" in Iraq.
From January to July 1998 Rumsfeld chaired the nine-member Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. They concluded that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea could develop intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities in five to ten years and that U.S. intelligence would have little warning before such systems were deployed."
posted by nickyskye at 5:16 PM on September 7, 2007
"During this period, he oversaw the transition to an all-volunteer military and, although he supported the Ford administration's efforts at détente, Rumsfeld sought to reverse the gradual decline in the defense budget and to build up U.S. strategic and conventional forces. He asserted, along with Team B, that trends in comparative U.S.-Soviet military strength had not favored the United States for 15 to 20 years and that, if continued, they "would have the effect of injecting a fundamental instability in the world.
Secretary Rumsfeld, seated at the Cabinet table, laughing with President Gerald Ford in 1975.
Secretary Rumsfeld, seated at the Cabinet table, laughing with President Gerald Ford in 1975.
In 1977, Rumsfeld was awarded the nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
"Rumsfeld was a founder and active member of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank dedicated to overthrowing Saddam Hussein with military force. On January 29, 1998, he signed a PNAC letter calling for President Bill Clinton to implement "regime change" in Iraq.
From January to July 1998 Rumsfeld chaired the nine-member Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. They concluded that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea could develop intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities in five to ten years and that U.S. intelligence would have little warning before such systems were deployed."
posted by nickyskye at 5:16 PM on September 7, 2007
Eric Rudolph farted around in the North Carolina mountains for five years after he made the Ten Most Wanted list. So don’t be surprised if we’re still getting Bin Laden tapes 30 years from now.
posted by Huplescat at 5:26 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by Huplescat at 5:26 PM on September 7, 2007
You don't really need conspiracies when obvious straightforward self-interest are perfectly acceptable explanations. ObL, by releasing his videotapes when he does and by saying the particular things he says, wins either way. He doesn't want the US out of Iraq—why would he? Iraq isn't a country he's ever cared much about. The US's invasion of Iraq is a boon to radical Islam and a great opportunity for Al Qaeda to attempt to repeat bin Laden's glory days of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. So, strengthening Bush against the Democrats in a roundabout fashion is in his interests. And, regardless, he gets huge publicity and more recruitment to his organization. If the US does pull-out of Iraq, he can call that a win and get the accolades for it. He wins if he helps Bush and a war continues, he wins if the Dems pull the US out of Iraq.
Is the Bush admin complict? They don't need to be when bin Laden is cooperating with them already. There's no need for a conspiracy theory when the aims of two different parties are furthered by them just doing what they were going to do, anyway.
Finally, while it's the case that Bush and the GOP are embarrassed by Craig and appearing more and more vulnerable, and with the Sept deadline for an examination of the effectiveness of The Push, it still isn't the optimum time to be trying to influence opinion in order to keep America in Iraq. That time will be the election and shortly thereafter as the Dems will likely control all branches of government. It's not as if there's any chance of Bush starting a pull-out before the election. General public opinion and the related possibility of a Republican President are the best bets for continuing the Iraq War, either by tilting the election to a Republican or by undermining Democratic opposition to the war if a Dem gets elected President. The public opinion battleground for the continuation of the war is next year, not now. Doing a video now and another next year will be diluting its effectiveness. Particularly if it turns out that this first video's ability to alter public opinion is either nonexistant or just short-lived. If so, the next one will have little effect at all.
So, I think, if you really believe this is a forgery by the Bushies, then you have to come up with a good counter to the previous paragraph. It's not really in their best interests to do a video now relative to later. It only appears to be in their interests when you think about what's going on right now in isolation from what will be happening a year from now.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:27 PM on September 7, 2007
Is the Bush admin complict? They don't need to be when bin Laden is cooperating with them already. There's no need for a conspiracy theory when the aims of two different parties are furthered by them just doing what they were going to do, anyway.
Finally, while it's the case that Bush and the GOP are embarrassed by Craig and appearing more and more vulnerable, and with the Sept deadline for an examination of the effectiveness of The Push, it still isn't the optimum time to be trying to influence opinion in order to keep America in Iraq. That time will be the election and shortly thereafter as the Dems will likely control all branches of government. It's not as if there's any chance of Bush starting a pull-out before the election. General public opinion and the related possibility of a Republican President are the best bets for continuing the Iraq War, either by tilting the election to a Republican or by undermining Democratic opposition to the war if a Dem gets elected President. The public opinion battleground for the continuation of the war is next year, not now. Doing a video now and another next year will be diluting its effectiveness. Particularly if it turns out that this first video's ability to alter public opinion is either nonexistant or just short-lived. If so, the next one will have little effect at all.
So, I think, if you really believe this is a forgery by the Bushies, then you have to come up with a good counter to the previous paragraph. It's not really in their best interests to do a video now relative to later. It only appears to be in their interests when you think about what's going on right now in isolation from what will be happening a year from now.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:27 PM on September 7, 2007
Rumsfeld!! That dude got name-dropped by Nixon and Bin Laden?
That motherfucker is harsh. In tribute to the significance of this magnificent bastard, I propose we establish a monument to him in the form of two monstrous balls hanging under the Washington monument, at which you are encouraged to first marvel at their grotesque audacity, and then kick them as hard as you can, as many times as you can.
posted by krippledkonscious at 5:33 PM on September 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
That motherfucker is harsh. In tribute to the significance of this magnificent bastard, I propose we establish a monument to him in the form of two monstrous balls hanging under the Washington monument, at which you are encouraged to first marvel at their grotesque audacity, and then kick them as hard as you can, as many times as you can.
posted by krippledkonscious at 5:33 PM on September 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
This Osama bin Laden dude is a dickhead.
posted by punkrockrat at 5:45 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by punkrockrat at 5:45 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
About Michael Scheuer, who is mentioned in ObL's transcript.
Scheuer re the war: "I think Iraq is finished. We’ll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. We certainly didn’t send enough troops to close borders, to control the country. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld was obsessed, apparently with his new, lighter, faster military. The inflow of fighters is growing. The pace of the insurgency, both there and in Afghanistan, is increasing. I don’t hold much of a brief for Sen. John McCain, but he’s right, in an unpalatable way: Unless we greatly increase the number of troops we have in Iraq, we’re going to have to leave. I think the question is how do we leave? Do we leave with some dignity, or do we leave by flying off the top of the embassy as we did in Saigon?"
Re ObL: "Bin Laden, of course, learned his military skills in Afghanistan, not on the Iran-Iraq border, and, as a result, his methodological approach to waging jihad is marked by a measured manner stressing patience, preparation, and professionalism."
and
"In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam's enemies. Bin Laden's first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front], Iraq's intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq's then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan's Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a "common strategy" with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would "flourish" in the late 1990s." Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 124)
2004 and Later
* I happened to do the research on the links between al Qaeda and Iraq. (:MATTHEWS: And what did you come up with?) :SCHEUER: Nothing. (Hardball with Chris Matthews November 16, 2004)"
and most hair raisingly
"The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda....These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we're going to have absolutely nothing to respond against." (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2006)
posted by nickyskye at 5:46 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Scheuer re the war: "I think Iraq is finished. We’ll just find a way to get out. I frankly don’t think we ever intended to win there. We certainly didn’t send enough troops to close borders, to control the country. [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld was obsessed, apparently with his new, lighter, faster military. The inflow of fighters is growing. The pace of the insurgency, both there and in Afghanistan, is increasing. I don’t hold much of a brief for Sen. John McCain, but he’s right, in an unpalatable way: Unless we greatly increase the number of troops we have in Iraq, we’re going to have to leave. I think the question is how do we leave? Do we leave with some dignity, or do we leave by flying off the top of the embassy as we did in Saigon?"
Re ObL: "Bin Laden, of course, learned his military skills in Afghanistan, not on the Iran-Iraq border, and, as a result, his methodological approach to waging jihad is marked by a measured manner stressing patience, preparation, and professionalism."
and
"In Sudan, Bin Laden decided to acquire and, when possible, use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons against Islam's enemies. Bin Laden's first moves in this direction were made in cooperation with NIF [Sudan's National Islamic Front], Iraq's intelligence service and Iraqi CBRN scientists and technicians. He made contact with Baghdad with its intelligence officers in Sudan and by a [Hassan] Turabi-brokered June-1994 visit by Iraq's then-intelligence chief Faruq al-Hijazi; according to Milan's Corriere della Sera, Saddam, in 1994, made Hijazi responsible for "nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors. Turabi had plans to formulate a "common strategy" with bin Laden and Iraq for subverting pro-U.S. Arab regimes, but the meeting was a get-acquainted session where Hijazi and bin Laden developed a good rapport that would "flourish" in the late 1990s." Through Our Enemies Eyes (p. 124)
2004 and Later
* I happened to do the research on the links between al Qaeda and Iraq. (:MATTHEWS: And what did you come up with?) :SCHEUER: Nothing. (Hardball with Chris Matthews November 16, 2004)"
and most hair raisingly
"The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States. The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda....These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we're going to have absolutely nothing to respond against." (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2006)
posted by nickyskye at 5:46 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I found a secret message
First letter of the second thru sixth words spell out
tap it
He wants us to all go out and tap it
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 6:00 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
First letter of the second thru sixth words spell out
tap it
He wants us to all go out and tap it
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 6:00 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Excellent Harper's article, Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security by Ken Silverstein August 23, 2006
" 1. We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
On balance, more vulnerable. We're safer in terms of aircraft travel. We're safer from being attacked by some dumbhead who tries to come into the country through an official checkpoint; we've spent billions on that. But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. There have been important successes by the intelligence services and Special Forces in capturing and killing Al Qaeda militants, but in the long run that's just a body count, not progress. We can't capture them one by one and bring them to justice. There are too many of them, and more now than before September 11. In official Western rhetoric these are finite organizations, but every time we interfere in Muslim countries they get more support.
In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world."
posted by nickyskye at 6:05 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
" 1. We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
On balance, more vulnerable. We're safer in terms of aircraft travel. We're safer from being attacked by some dumbhead who tries to come into the country through an official checkpoint; we've spent billions on that. But for the most part our victories have been tactical and not strategic. There have been important successes by the intelligence services and Special Forces in capturing and killing Al Qaeda militants, but in the long run that's just a body count, not progress. We can't capture them one by one and bring them to justice. There are too many of them, and more now than before September 11. In official Western rhetoric these are finite organizations, but every time we interfere in Muslim countries they get more support.
In the long run, we're not safer because we're still operating on the assumption that we're hated because of our freedoms, when in fact we're hated because of our actions in the Islamic world."
posted by nickyskye at 6:05 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Osama 08: Considering the state of flux in the GOP Presidential field, it's really not too late for OBL to get in and have a serious shot at winning the Republican nomination.
He'd be able to espouse a more conservative foreign policy than anyone but McCain, and with his "Fair Alms" tax proposal, he'd have a more conservative economic plan than any of them.
And, of course, given his views on social issues, I think GOP voters could rely on his judicial appointments. ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
He'd be able to espouse a more conservative foreign policy than anyone but McCain, and with his "Fair Alms" tax proposal, he'd have a more conservative economic plan than any of them.
And, of course, given his views on social issues, I think GOP voters could rely on his judicial appointments. ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
and also from there: Don't forget that Osama is REALLY tall. He may be more majestic than Fred Thompson.
posted by amberglow at 6:25 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by amberglow at 6:25 PM on September 7, 2007
Don't know about OBL, but I am starting to think I'm going to actually owe you $20.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:30 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:30 PM on September 7, 2007
Well, I don't think it's any coincidence that Bush and bin Laden's agendas coincide, nor is it surprising that bin Laden's releases are timed conveniently for the Republican Party. But no great conspiracies are required for this - certainly no puppeteering, photoshopping, scripting, or the like. It's basic decision theory - Bush and bin Laden are just acting in their own best interests. The more outrageously Christian and aggro the States is, the more appeal al-Qaeda gains. Osama's success in provoking absurd foreign policy like Iraq and Afghanistan (let's be honest, never would've happened without him) has left America's hands bloodied by a million civilian deaths, essentially proving 9/11's point. Even if we didn't agree with him six years ago, we're forced to now. The man's an evil genius.
I'm sure Bush would love to capture bin Laden - he's essentially being cuckolded by the guy - but in reality, it's an impossible task. Osama has a network he's spent at least two decades building, which intelligence agencies have virtually no access to. It's easy to pretend the CIA works as well as it does on Alias, or in the Bourne _____, but domestic politics make it pretty obvious it's mostly busy torturing detainees.
posted by mek at 6:36 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm sure Bush would love to capture bin Laden - he's essentially being cuckolded by the guy - but in reality, it's an impossible task. Osama has a network he's spent at least two decades building, which intelligence agencies have virtually no access to. It's easy to pretend the CIA works as well as it does on Alias, or in the Bourne _____, but domestic politics make it pretty obvious it's mostly busy torturing detainees.
posted by mek at 6:36 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm sad to live in a country where the guy who sends out suicide bombers and planes into office buildings speaks more truth, even if it's some hypocritical attempt to play for sympathy, or just another political move in the game, than the guys who run the country.
"despite all of this, 19 young men were able ... to change the direction of its compass. And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader, and the effects and signs of that are not hidden."
" ... And as a result, the people discovered the truth about it, its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically, even if our interests overlap with the interests of the major corporations and also with those of the neoconservatives, despite the differing intentions."
This part reads to me as his victory speech, and it's a much more valid one than any of Bush's Missions Accomplished. Basically, the terrorists, corporations, and neoconservatives are winning, and America is losing - and the terrorists didn't even have to do any real significant harm to this country, just start things going and let the administration do the real work.
Analysis as a political move: by basically expressing support for the anti-war movement, environmentalism, etc. he fortifies those who support the war, anti-environmentalism, etc. - hoping to make it continue and thus have America keep destroying itself.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 6:42 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
"despite all of this, 19 young men were able ... to change the direction of its compass. And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader, and the effects and signs of that are not hidden."
" ... And as a result, the people discovered the truth about it, its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically, even if our interests overlap with the interests of the major corporations and also with those of the neoconservatives, despite the differing intentions."
This part reads to me as his victory speech, and it's a much more valid one than any of Bush's Missions Accomplished. Basically, the terrorists, corporations, and neoconservatives are winning, and America is losing - and the terrorists didn't even have to do any real significant harm to this country, just start things going and let the administration do the real work.
Analysis as a political move: by basically expressing support for the anti-war movement, environmentalism, etc. he fortifies those who support the war, anti-environmentalism, etc. - hoping to make it continue and thus have America keep destroying itself.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 6:42 PM on September 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
He wants us to all go out and tap it
In the men's room at the rest stop no less.
posted by caddis at 6:44 PM on September 7, 2007
In the men's room at the rest stop no less.
posted by caddis at 6:44 PM on September 7, 2007
Here's what I don't get. Presumably, one of the goals of these tapes is to say, "hey, I'm still alive, fuck you". (Or if the conspiracy theory is correct, it's supposed to *appear* to be such.) So why doesn't he make a reference that proves he was alive on a given date? Something simple, like the DJIA on a recent date, or recent events (maybe "# of Americans killed in Iraq last week" would suit his taste better). Otherwise, people will just think maybe Al Qaeda recorded a bunch so they could keep playing them posthumously.
I suppose this way he keeps everyone guessing, and wastes some CIA resources, but that doesn't seem like a very satisfying answer.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 6:45 PM on September 7, 2007
I suppose this way he keeps everyone guessing, and wastes some CIA resources, but that doesn't seem like a very satisfying answer.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 6:45 PM on September 7, 2007
I'm sure Bush would love to capture bin Laden - he's essentially being cuckolded by the guy
Osama Bin Laden is fucking Laura Bush?
posted by Kwantsar at 6:54 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Osama Bin Laden is fucking Laura Bush?
posted by Kwantsar at 6:54 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Why does Osama show up spouting liberalisms every time Bush needs a boost? It's pretty obvious. He's the master of reverse psychology. Boosting Bush is good for him.
Bush, as President, has given Osama everything he's ever wanted and more. War with the Muslim world? Check. Quagmire? Check. Alienating every nation on Earth? Check. Paranoid destruction of civil liberties? Check. Spending gazillions of dollars in the stupidest way possible, contributing to the future endangerment of the American way of life? Check.
If anything, he's dying for Bush to go to war with Iran. Why else would he choose to talk about topics that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but piss off conservative pricks to no end?
posted by fungible at 6:59 PM on September 7, 2007
Bush, as President, has given Osama everything he's ever wanted and more. War with the Muslim world? Check. Quagmire? Check. Alienating every nation on Earth? Check. Paranoid destruction of civil liberties? Check. Spending gazillions of dollars in the stupidest way possible, contributing to the future endangerment of the American way of life? Check.
If anything, he's dying for Bush to go to war with Iran. Why else would he choose to talk about topics that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but piss off conservative pricks to no end?
posted by fungible at 6:59 PM on September 7, 2007
The Bush-Osama relationship is quite Shakespearean in its tragic consequences... let's go with Othello. Apologies in advance.
Osama already resembles Iago with his ethereal existence and ability to provoke massive overreaction with te us for our freedom, 9/11 changes everything, etc, etc;a single action, which shrinks to insignificance on reflection (more Americans having died in the wars following 9/11, than in the event itself). 9/11 serves, in this silly diatribe of mine, as Othello's handkerchief, the only real thing Osama/Iago could point to (and that he was responsible for). To each man, 9/11 means something completely different: to Bush it was a terrible sin, which finalized his near-pathological white vs. black comprehension of the world, which had been fermenting unspoken for years. Finally, he thought, absolute proof, they really do ha this handkerchief justified his later deeds, no matter how terrible and completely unrelated. To Osama/Iago, 9/11 itself is irrelevant, a tool, a trifle, and only important as a symbol: it revealed America's darkness within, as we used it as an excuse to kill over a million civilians. If we had treated 9/11 as a tragic accident, as our own failure, as a freak action by true extremists, Osama would have been rendered powerless. But he bet successfully, as Iago did, that we would accept his easy, simplistic, appealing bullseye, because it would serve to reinforce our (well, Bush's) misconceptions... that we would paint him as the villain. And now here we are, six years later. Note that much like Othello, the things Bush apparently believes may ring false even to himself - it's not the beliefs that matter, but the reasons for believing them.
The tragedy is that, while 9/11 was supposedly targetting an immoral and evil America, it was America's actions after 9/11 which confirmed the truth of these accusations to the entire world. Osama may have been wrong in 2001; but nobody can deny that, knowing what we know now, the invasion of Iraq was unspeakably immoral and downright evil.
and no, I don't think anyone's fucking Laura Bush. I meant that Osama's continued existence is an acknowledgement of Bush's inadequacy as a leader (and therefore as a man). You need to think like a frat boy to understand a frat boy.
posted by mek at 7:19 PM on September 7, 2007
Osama already resembles Iago with his ethereal existence and ability to provoke massive overreaction with te us for our freedom, 9/11 changes everything, etc, etc;a single action, which shrinks to insignificance on reflection (more Americans having died in the wars following 9/11, than in the event itself). 9/11 serves, in this silly diatribe of mine, as Othello's handkerchief, the only real thing Osama/Iago could point to (and that he was responsible for). To each man, 9/11 means something completely different: to Bush it was a terrible sin, which finalized his near-pathological white vs. black comprehension of the world, which had been fermenting unspoken for years. Finally, he thought, absolute proof, they really do ha this handkerchief justified his later deeds, no matter how terrible and completely unrelated. To Osama/Iago, 9/11 itself is irrelevant, a tool, a trifle, and only important as a symbol: it revealed America's darkness within, as we used it as an excuse to kill over a million civilians. If we had treated 9/11 as a tragic accident, as our own failure, as a freak action by true extremists, Osama would have been rendered powerless. But he bet successfully, as Iago did, that we would accept his easy, simplistic, appealing bullseye, because it would serve to reinforce our (well, Bush's) misconceptions... that we would paint him as the villain. And now here we are, six years later. Note that much like Othello, the things Bush apparently believes may ring false even to himself - it's not the beliefs that matter, but the reasons for believing them.
The tragedy is that, while 9/11 was supposedly targetting an immoral and evil America, it was America's actions after 9/11 which confirmed the truth of these accusations to the entire world. Osama may have been wrong in 2001; but nobody can deny that, knowing what we know now, the invasion of Iraq was unspeakably immoral and downright evil.
and no, I don't think anyone's fucking Laura Bush. I meant that Osama's continued existence is an acknowledgement of Bush's inadequacy as a leader (and therefore as a man). You need to think like a frat boy to understand a frat boy.
posted by mek at 7:19 PM on September 7, 2007
Oh, and I shouldn't have to observe that while Othello's inadequacies stem from his "moorishness," Bush's most likely stem from... well, the man thought he was at OPEC in Austria. "My Pet Goat." He didn't have a real job until... well, ever. Wouldn't you feel inadequate?
posted by mek at 7:26 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by mek at 7:26 PM on September 7, 2007
Karzai: bin Laden 'probably' dead-
Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead, but former Taliban leader Mullah Omar is alive, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said. [CNN]
FBI: Bin Laden 'probably' dead-
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead. [BBC]
Magazine runs what it calls bin Laden's will-
The editor-in-chief of a London-based Arab news magazine said a purported will it published was written in 2001 by Osama bin Laden, and shows "he's dying or he's going to die soon." [CNN]
posted by wfc123 at 7:26 PM on September 7, 2007
Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead, but former Taliban leader Mullah Omar is alive, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said. [CNN]
FBI: Bin Laden 'probably' dead-
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead. [BBC]
Magazine runs what it calls bin Laden's will-
The editor-in-chief of a London-based Arab news magazine said a purported will it published was written in 2001 by Osama bin Laden, and shows "he's dying or he's going to die soon." [CNN]
posted by wfc123 at 7:26 PM on September 7, 2007
There will be much discussion about the US's attitudes and policies in the wake of this missive, and of course the partisans will infight and make specious comparisons as to which political party suits the terrorists best. But I think it's worthwhile to examine this from UBL's perspective for a second.
As I was reading this transcript it was pretty clear...he's losing, and he knows it.
His plan to incite the US to war (bombing embassies didn't do it, attacking the USS Cole didn't do it...but 9/11 did) was achieved in spectacular fashion, but little else of their goals have been met (or will be.)
They lost their sanctuary in Afghanistan, and no longer have a host government like the Taliban. They have lost their previous organizational capacity, and numerous top operatives are either dead or missing (or worse, in US custody.) They have not toppled a single "apostate" government, and have not established a foothold for their caliphate anywhere. They likely have not obtained nuclear weapons (on the basis of the stated fact that if they had nukes, they'd have used them on Israel already -- this is according to al Zawahiri.) The likely victor of the US invasion of Iraq are the Persian Shia. This was NOT his plan.
Our withdrawal from the "land of the two holy places" suits us more than it does him. Despite the fact that the US isn't protecting the House of Saud from within, Bin Laden has not been able to topple that government despite his best efforts, best organization, most sympathetic populace, the home of Wahhabism and all the other seeming advantages he'd have there.
Granted -- we haven't caught him. But when he releases a video, it's not only Americans who wonder if it's fake or real, if he's alive or dead, but his own fanbase and his own operatives wonder as well. He is neither martyred nor undoubtedly alive. He is in limbo, having to risk his own security to release videotapes for a chance to prove he's still breathing, and it's still met with doubt and skepticism. As George Friedman pointed out, this condition causes "operational confusion" which causes problems for al Queda and creates opportunities for us.
Whatever sort of psychology or reverse psychology he's trying to pull in this video is debatable. (And I am NOT looking forward to seeing Americans tear each other apart over this nonsense he's spewing.) But his claims of victory ring pretty fucking hollow. I think it's less likely that he's been able to assemble the sort of all-star team that pulled off 9/11, and quite frankly he's set the bar for spectacular attacks higher than he'll ever be able to acheive again. Anything less than 9/11 would be viewed as a diminished capacity.
Multiple, simultaneous suicide attacks by self-funded, experienced operatives working independently in enemy territory? Pardon the baseball analogy, but the 9/11 attacks were like his whole team hitting for the cycle on the day his starter takes a no-hitter into the 9th (it wasn't a no-hitter, that part was broken up when Flight 93 went down in PA.)
Short of having nukes (always a threat) AND being able to smuggle them in, AND assemble the teams and evade detection and all the unprecedented tradecraft he'd need to employ to light up NYC -- it is pretty fucking unlikely that he'd have the wherewithal and good luck for his stars to align twice like that.
Say what you will about the surveillance (and I join with those have objections on Constitutional grounds) but it makes for a much more hostile operating environment. So does the way we're tracking the money, which is one of the few common threads you can tug with an organization as insular as al Queda. I don't doubt they'll try, but I simply don't think they could succeed like that again on US soil. So far, instead of pulling off another 9/11, he's relegated to releasing divisive videos. Once every three years. But hey, he's got a nice website.
Whatever the US is doing, it's pretty certain that Bin Laden is NOT winning. He is losing.
posted by edverb at 7:28 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
As I was reading this transcript it was pretty clear...he's losing, and he knows it.
His plan to incite the US to war (bombing embassies didn't do it, attacking the USS Cole didn't do it...but 9/11 did) was achieved in spectacular fashion, but little else of their goals have been met (or will be.)
They lost their sanctuary in Afghanistan, and no longer have a host government like the Taliban. They have lost their previous organizational capacity, and numerous top operatives are either dead or missing (or worse, in US custody.) They have not toppled a single "apostate" government, and have not established a foothold for their caliphate anywhere. They likely have not obtained nuclear weapons (on the basis of the stated fact that if they had nukes, they'd have used them on Israel already -- this is according to al Zawahiri.) The likely victor of the US invasion of Iraq are the Persian Shia. This was NOT his plan.
Our withdrawal from the "land of the two holy places" suits us more than it does him. Despite the fact that the US isn't protecting the House of Saud from within, Bin Laden has not been able to topple that government despite his best efforts, best organization, most sympathetic populace, the home of Wahhabism and all the other seeming advantages he'd have there.
Granted -- we haven't caught him. But when he releases a video, it's not only Americans who wonder if it's fake or real, if he's alive or dead, but his own fanbase and his own operatives wonder as well. He is neither martyred nor undoubtedly alive. He is in limbo, having to risk his own security to release videotapes for a chance to prove he's still breathing, and it's still met with doubt and skepticism. As George Friedman pointed out, this condition causes "operational confusion" which causes problems for al Queda and creates opportunities for us.
Whatever sort of psychology or reverse psychology he's trying to pull in this video is debatable. (And I am NOT looking forward to seeing Americans tear each other apart over this nonsense he's spewing.) But his claims of victory ring pretty fucking hollow. I think it's less likely that he's been able to assemble the sort of all-star team that pulled off 9/11, and quite frankly he's set the bar for spectacular attacks higher than he'll ever be able to acheive again. Anything less than 9/11 would be viewed as a diminished capacity.
Multiple, simultaneous suicide attacks by self-funded, experienced operatives working independently in enemy territory? Pardon the baseball analogy, but the 9/11 attacks were like his whole team hitting for the cycle on the day his starter takes a no-hitter into the 9th (it wasn't a no-hitter, that part was broken up when Flight 93 went down in PA.)
Short of having nukes (always a threat) AND being able to smuggle them in, AND assemble the teams and evade detection and all the unprecedented tradecraft he'd need to employ to light up NYC -- it is pretty fucking unlikely that he'd have the wherewithal and good luck for his stars to align twice like that.
Say what you will about the surveillance (and I join with those have objections on Constitutional grounds) but it makes for a much more hostile operating environment. So does the way we're tracking the money, which is one of the few common threads you can tug with an organization as insular as al Queda. I don't doubt they'll try, but I simply don't think they could succeed like that again on US soil. So far, instead of pulling off another 9/11, he's relegated to releasing divisive videos. Once every three years. But hey, he's got a nice website.
Whatever the US is doing, it's pretty certain that Bin Laden is NOT winning. He is losing.
posted by edverb at 7:28 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Hey we don't burn anyone alive, not even jews."
pay no attention to those large fireballs bursting from your wtc.
posted by quonsar at 7:36 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
pay no attention to those large fireballs bursting from your wtc.
posted by quonsar at 7:36 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
The damage from September 11, 2001 is still ongoing. So far, he hasn't and won't for the near future have to pull off another attack to keep it going. He said as much himself. If this continues, it seems quite likely he will reach his goal of vastly diminishing American international power and simply of having done long-lasting harm to America. Basically, America keeps damaging itself as long as the various hyperbolic reactions to terrorism continue, for example, the Iraq War, the loss of civil rights, corporate welfare for "homeland security."
I agree that he probably can't pull off another spectacular attack - not so much because of the American response, but because there's probably really very few people willing to do a suicide attack and smart enough to actually pull off a spectacular one, and I think he used up his whole A-team on September 11. I'm surprised there hasn't been a small scale attack on America to ratchet up the hyperbolic responses - have a guy make a few IEDs, find whatever gun he can, and go to Times Square killing people and making it very clear he's Al Qaeda. Maybe he'd kill 25 people and injure a bunch more and then the crowd overwhelms him, but god knows what kind of spasm of self-destruction that would set off. Maybe he's too fixated on spectacles, or maybe he's saving that for later?
Also, whether he's alive or dead sort of doesn't matter to me - replace "Osama bin Laden" with "the terrorists" and everything still holds.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:45 PM on September 7, 2007
I agree that he probably can't pull off another spectacular attack - not so much because of the American response, but because there's probably really very few people willing to do a suicide attack and smart enough to actually pull off a spectacular one, and I think he used up his whole A-team on September 11. I'm surprised there hasn't been a small scale attack on America to ratchet up the hyperbolic responses - have a guy make a few IEDs, find whatever gun he can, and go to Times Square killing people and making it very clear he's Al Qaeda. Maybe he'd kill 25 people and injure a bunch more and then the crowd overwhelms him, but god knows what kind of spasm of self-destruction that would set off. Maybe he's too fixated on spectacles, or maybe he's saving that for later?
Also, whether he's alive or dead sort of doesn't matter to me - replace "Osama bin Laden" with "the terrorists" and everything still holds.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:45 PM on September 7, 2007
...you know, since apparently Bin Laden reads western media I guess there's always the chance (however slim) that he's reading this. So I have a message for him.
Osama,
Not only are you losing, but you're losing to George W. Bush -- a man who can barely string words together to form coherent sentences. Think about that for awhile, and then go fuck yourself.
Sincerely,
edverb
posted by edverb at 7:58 PM on September 7, 2007
Osama,
Not only are you losing, but you're losing to George W. Bush -- a man who can barely string words together to form coherent sentences. Think about that for awhile, and then go fuck yourself.
Sincerely,
edverb
posted by edverb at 7:58 PM on September 7, 2007
nickyskye writes "Wait a sec, details about Rumsfeld on Wikipedia: "
Yeah, no shit. A hell of a lot of the guys who worked for Bush also worked for Nixon and Ford. Those slimy bastards fucked it all up real good back then, and then they somehow got the chance to come back and fuck everything up all over again. And we let them.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:03 PM on September 7, 2007
Yeah, no shit. A hell of a lot of the guys who worked for Bush also worked for Nixon and Ford. Those slimy bastards fucked it all up real good back then, and then they somehow got the chance to come back and fuck everything up all over again. And we let them.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:03 PM on September 7, 2007
It still surprises me that people think Al-Qaeda and OBL were anything more than cogs in the machinery for 9/11.
The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:55 PM on September 7, 2007
The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:55 PM on September 7, 2007
everb, may I introduce you to rope-a-dope.
There is no need to fight when your opponent is exhausting himself trying to land punches and repeatedly missing, or hitting the wrong targets (groups labelling themselves "Al-Queda in ____" with nothing but the most tenuous of philosophical connections to OBL.)
America is making enemies far faster and more effectively than OBL ever could. Why attack the US again, when it might actually cause them to focus?
The major goal of Al-Queda - US military withdrawl from Saudi Arabia - was accomplished circa 2002. It's going to take more than five years to overthrow the House of Saud, and he knows it. Check back in another five to ten years, when oil is $120 a barrel and the Ghawar Field is sucking fumes.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 9:19 PM on September 7, 2007
There is no need to fight when your opponent is exhausting himself trying to land punches and repeatedly missing, or hitting the wrong targets (groups labelling themselves "Al-Queda in ____" with nothing but the most tenuous of philosophical connections to OBL.)
America is making enemies far faster and more effectively than OBL ever could. Why attack the US again, when it might actually cause them to focus?
The major goal of Al-Queda - US military withdrawl from Saudi Arabia - was accomplished circa 2002. It's going to take more than five years to overthrow the House of Saud, and he knows it. Check back in another five to ten years, when oil is $120 a barrel and the Ghawar Field is sucking fumes.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 9:19 PM on September 7, 2007
Have Bush and Bin Laden ever been seen at the same time? I stand on my case.
posted by A189Nut at 9:20 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by A189Nut at 9:20 PM on September 7, 2007
If real, this is pretty interesting. Bin Laden would appear to be trying to reposition himself as a kind of subversive figure that western activists can feel comfortable supporting - Che Guevara rather than Shankill Butcher. He may even be sincere. But I don't think this message reflects Al Qaeda in general, which seems to be a brand/strategy/ideology that appeals to guys who are just desperate to do something rather than achieve anything, a kind of therapeutic murder for deeply humiliated young men. Bin Laden might make some sensible-sounding rhetorical gestures, but I seriously doubt that the suicide bombers that consider themselves to be his army would be willing to offer shelter and sanctuary to persecuted Jews.
Al Qaeda are a tiny, widely despised group who punch way above their weight in terms of name recognition and ability to troll US policymakers. As far as I can tell, their main objective in Iraq is to prolong the civil war so that they can swim about in it, training and recruiting (if any single force ever achieved real political power in Iraq, they would immediately wipe out AQ there), and eventually march on what seems to be their real immediate target - Saudi Arabia. This is probably why the Saudis are sealing their border with Iraq.
posted by stammer at 9:38 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Al Qaeda are a tiny, widely despised group who punch way above their weight in terms of name recognition and ability to troll US policymakers. As far as I can tell, their main objective in Iraq is to prolong the civil war so that they can swim about in it, training and recruiting (if any single force ever achieved real political power in Iraq, they would immediately wipe out AQ there), and eventually march on what seems to be their real immediate target - Saudi Arabia. This is probably why the Saudis are sealing their border with Iraq.
posted by stammer at 9:38 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
TheOnlyCoolTim : I agree that he probably can't pull off another spectacular attack
Really? I mean, I'll grant you, that I don't think he could hijack a couple of planes and crash them into something anymore, but beyond that, everything we've put in place since the WTCs coming down is just security theater.
By all accounts, the hard targets that we should be protecting, like nuclear and chemical plants are still attainable, and soft targets like schools and malls and stadiums would be trivial.
I'm not suggesting that we should be living in fear or anything, but let's be honest. 9-11 didn't really change all that much in terms of how we protect ourselves. All it really did was scare us into giving up rights that don't really make us any safer.
If bin Laden really wanted to hit us again, I suspect he could. I don't worry about it though; because there is a big gap between 'possible' and 'probable'.
posted by quin at 9:39 PM on September 7, 2007
Really? I mean, I'll grant you, that I don't think he could hijack a couple of planes and crash them into something anymore, but beyond that, everything we've put in place since the WTCs coming down is just security theater.
By all accounts, the hard targets that we should be protecting, like nuclear and chemical plants are still attainable, and soft targets like schools and malls and stadiums would be trivial.
I'm not suggesting that we should be living in fear or anything, but let's be honest. 9-11 didn't really change all that much in terms of how we protect ourselves. All it really did was scare us into giving up rights that don't really make us any safer.
If bin Laden really wanted to hit us again, I suspect he could. I don't worry about it though; because there is a big gap between 'possible' and 'probable'.
posted by quin at 9:39 PM on September 7, 2007
Newsweek: Into Thin Air -- "He's still out there. The hunt for bin Laden."
posted by ericb at 9:52 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by ericb at 9:52 PM on September 7, 2007
Was the tape produced at Langley or in the White House basement? Where ever they kept Reagan's left over hair dye.
posted by hortense at 9:56 PM on September 7, 2007
posted by hortense at 9:56 PM on September 7, 2007
quin:
I agree that what we've done since then is mostly security theater. My argument rests on my feeling that there are probably very few smart people willing to pull off suicide attacks and they were mostly used up in September 11. To pull off a spectacularly damaging attack against a defended target, in my opinion, requires smarts - planning, a lot of carefulness, etc. And by defended, I'm talking about the sensible kind of defense that does and should exist around things that could be targets. Want to blow up a nuclear power plant in a way that releases a cloud of deadly radiation as opposed to temporarily shutting the plant down? You need guys on the inside, or a lot of intelligence gathering - blueprints of the plant, operating procedures, safety mechanisms. Even a "boring" chemical plant (probably more of a real danger than a nuclear plant) - let's say you get 20 guys and bust in - what tanks should you be blowing up in the limited time you have before all the police in the county are there, and does this chemical plant even have tanks of anything that's going to be particularly terrifying to the populace? You need advance planning and intelligence gathering to know that, and I think the average guy who's willing to suicide himself for Allah isn't bright enough for that. The September 11 guys had to learn how to fly a plane, figure out the tactics necessary to take control of a jetload of people, coordinate their attacks, and so on. They did a lot of planning and still only had a 75% success rate.
As I said, I'm surprised there haven't been any "easy" attacks, but I think that pulling off a spectacular one might be beyond their reach for now. Being spectacular doesn't so much require a death toll - 3,000 people die from cigarette smoking in what, a week? The spectacular nature of September 11 was due to the destruction of landmarks - relatively, no one gives a shit about the Pentagon or an airplane crashing in a field.
I'll admit my main evidence is the sheer stupidity of a lot of the attempted attacks since then. Put bombs in your shoes, and you can't get the fuse lit? You're a fuck-up. Load up a car with propane tanks from the barbecue store and crash it into an airport terminal? LOL. Hey guys, let's the five or six of us singlehandedly attack an Army base with rifles? Idiots. Consider the amount of planning, foresight, and patience required to be sure of success and the lack of such qualities that most people display. Al Qaeda could probably very patiently get some guy a job at a janitorial contracting company that cleans the nuclear plant and have him do the janitor job quietly and well until he's noted enough information to pull off an attack, but the American populace shows that many people have the kind of lack of foresight that lets you give them a mortgage contract that says interest goes from cheap to YOU'RE FUCKED in a couple years without them realizing that they'll be fucked in a couple years.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:38 PM on September 7, 2007
I agree that what we've done since then is mostly security theater. My argument rests on my feeling that there are probably very few smart people willing to pull off suicide attacks and they were mostly used up in September 11. To pull off a spectacularly damaging attack against a defended target, in my opinion, requires smarts - planning, a lot of carefulness, etc. And by defended, I'm talking about the sensible kind of defense that does and should exist around things that could be targets. Want to blow up a nuclear power plant in a way that releases a cloud of deadly radiation as opposed to temporarily shutting the plant down? You need guys on the inside, or a lot of intelligence gathering - blueprints of the plant, operating procedures, safety mechanisms. Even a "boring" chemical plant (probably more of a real danger than a nuclear plant) - let's say you get 20 guys and bust in - what tanks should you be blowing up in the limited time you have before all the police in the county are there, and does this chemical plant even have tanks of anything that's going to be particularly terrifying to the populace? You need advance planning and intelligence gathering to know that, and I think the average guy who's willing to suicide himself for Allah isn't bright enough for that. The September 11 guys had to learn how to fly a plane, figure out the tactics necessary to take control of a jetload of people, coordinate their attacks, and so on. They did a lot of planning and still only had a 75% success rate.
As I said, I'm surprised there haven't been any "easy" attacks, but I think that pulling off a spectacular one might be beyond their reach for now. Being spectacular doesn't so much require a death toll - 3,000 people die from cigarette smoking in what, a week? The spectacular nature of September 11 was due to the destruction of landmarks - relatively, no one gives a shit about the Pentagon or an airplane crashing in a field.
I'll admit my main evidence is the sheer stupidity of a lot of the attempted attacks since then. Put bombs in your shoes, and you can't get the fuse lit? You're a fuck-up. Load up a car with propane tanks from the barbecue store and crash it into an airport terminal? LOL. Hey guys, let's the five or six of us singlehandedly attack an Army base with rifles? Idiots. Consider the amount of planning, foresight, and patience required to be sure of success and the lack of such qualities that most people display. Al Qaeda could probably very patiently get some guy a job at a janitorial contracting company that cleans the nuclear plant and have him do the janitor job quietly and well until he's noted enough information to pull off an attack, but the American populace shows that many people have the kind of lack of foresight that lets you give them a mortgage contract that says interest goes from cheap to YOU'RE FUCKED in a couple years without them realizing that they'll be fucked in a couple years.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:38 PM on September 7, 2007
Bin Laden using Just For Men?
Only his handler knows for sure!
Have Bush and Bin Laden ever been seen at the same time? I stand on my case.
Yeah, the CIA Employee Family Day Picnic, '87. They fucking pwned Saddam and Rummy in the three-legged race.
Me, I expect a superficially bedraggled Steve Fossett to emerge from the Mojave in a few days, Clark Kent-style: "Hey gang, what'd I miss?"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:38 PM on September 7, 2007
Only his handler knows for sure!
Have Bush and Bin Laden ever been seen at the same time? I stand on my case.
Yeah, the CIA Employee Family Day Picnic, '87. They fucking pwned Saddam and Rummy in the three-legged race.
Me, I expect a superficially bedraggled Steve Fossett to emerge from the Mojave in a few days, Clark Kent-style: "Hey gang, what'd I miss?"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:38 PM on September 7, 2007
Not only are you losing, but you're losing to George W. Bush -- a man who can barely string words together to form coherent sentences. Think about that for awhile, and then go fuck yourself.
If you think Bush is winning at anything except pushing his own agendas and friends up the ladder, you're a blind man.
posted by secret about box at 12:25 AM on September 8, 2007
If you think Bush is winning at anything except pushing his own agendas and friends up the ladder, you're a blind man.
posted by secret about box at 12:25 AM on September 8, 2007
"So why doesn't he make a reference that proves he was alive on a given date? Something simple, like the DJIA on a recent date, or recent events..."
Um, maybe the mention of Sarkozy was a clue?
"He's been dead for years, folks."
Yeah, right. Uh-huh.
"It still surprises me that people think Al-Qaeda and OBL were anything more than cogs in the machinery for 9/11."
(A long rant deleted.) You're an idiot. It's pretty much that simple. So is every other 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Idiots, the lot of you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:09 AM on September 8, 2007
Um, maybe the mention of Sarkozy was a clue?
"He's been dead for years, folks."
Yeah, right. Uh-huh.
"It still surprises me that people think Al-Qaeda and OBL were anything more than cogs in the machinery for 9/11."
(A long rant deleted.) You're an idiot. It's pretty much that simple. So is every other 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Idiots, the lot of you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:09 AM on September 8, 2007
Ethereal Bligh: of course! Thanks.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 1:32 AM on September 8, 2007
posted by spaceman_spiff at 1:32 AM on September 8, 2007
Osama bin Laden has gotten away with mass murder for six years now, is writing us love letters taunting us with that fact, and the Administration and its neocon "muses" are now focusing like a laser beam on ... Iran.
Why is this man still free and/or alive?
If the folks in running this show had any honor, they would have fallen on their own swords for shame of their failure by now. Instead, they are planning for things like their own Fantastic Freedom Institute.
posted by moonbiter at 2:49 AM on September 8, 2007
Why is this man still free and/or alive?
If the folks in running this show had any honor, they would have fallen on their own swords for shame of their failure by now. Instead, they are planning for things like their own Fantastic Freedom Institute.
posted by moonbiter at 2:49 AM on September 8, 2007
I took Osama's bait and looked for the part of the Koran/Quran chapter Maryam, which talks about Jesus. (Pardon my ignorance but I hadn't read the Koran previously.)
The Maryam chapter affirms the virginal birth of Jesus from Mary, says that Jesus is a prophet and is blessed, but denies that he is the son of God ("35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.") and has Jesus telling his father to call on Allah alone.
I suppose Osama is pointing to this chapter as reflecting honor on Jesus and I can see it from that point of view but I don't see much of a basis for Christians to drop their worship of Christ as Osama is apparently hoping.
posted by notmtwain at 7:15 AM on September 8, 2007
The Maryam chapter affirms the virginal birth of Jesus from Mary, says that Jesus is a prophet and is blessed, but denies that he is the son of God ("35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.") and has Jesus telling his father to call on Allah alone.
I suppose Osama is pointing to this chapter as reflecting honor on Jesus and I can see it from that point of view but I don't see much of a basis for Christians to drop their worship of Christ as Osama is apparently hoping.
posted by notmtwain at 7:15 AM on September 8, 2007
COME ON DOWN TO AL KYDA CHEVROLET - WE'RE BLOWING THE DOORS OFF PRICES!!!1!!1
posted by quonsar at 7:43 AM on September 8, 2007
posted by quonsar at 7:43 AM on September 8, 2007
The Maryam chapter affirms the virginal birth of Jesus from Mary
Incidently, I stumbled across a page the other day that claimed Mary "the virgin" was actually Mary "the maiden" or somesuch: to wit, it's a translation error.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:04 AM on September 8, 2007
Incidently, I stumbled across a page the other day that claimed Mary "the virgin" was actually Mary "the maiden" or somesuch: to wit, it's a translation error.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:04 AM on September 8, 2007
9-11 didn't really change all that much in terms of how we protect ourselves. All it really did was scare us into giving up rights that don't really make us any safer.
I'm curious: what did 9-11 change?
With the sole exception of being hassled by The Man a lot more often and easily, nothing seems to have changed. The economy wasn't ruined. Lifestyles didn't change. The same people, or the same type of people, are still in power.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:10 AM on September 8, 2007
I'm curious: what did 9-11 change?
With the sole exception of being hassled by The Man a lot more often and easily, nothing seems to have changed. The economy wasn't ruined. Lifestyles didn't change. The same people, or the same type of people, are still in power.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:10 AM on September 8, 2007
Wait, I forgot: there has been a significant change.
There has been an astounding movement of wealth from the masses to the few extraordinarily wealthy men in the business of war-mongering.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:14 AM on September 8, 2007
There has been an astounding movement of wealth from the masses to the few extraordinarily wealthy men in the business of war-mongering.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:14 AM on September 8, 2007
I'm curious: what did 9-11 change?
Among other things, there's a couple wars on, and this country has become a nation of cowards, scared shitless when we see a trail of flour used to mark a temporary running path and so on.
Funny note: I saw one night in the East Village someone had dropped what looked to be a decent sized baggie of coke. (I didn't pick it up and try it out or anything, naturally.) Somehow, NYC didn't have a terrorism scare over that suspicious white powder.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:21 AM on September 8, 2007
Among other things, there's a couple wars on, and this country has become a nation of cowards, scared shitless when we see a trail of flour used to mark a temporary running path and so on.
Funny note: I saw one night in the East Village someone had dropped what looked to be a decent sized baggie of coke. (I didn't pick it up and try it out or anything, naturally.) Somehow, NYC didn't have a terrorism scare over that suspicious white powder.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:21 AM on September 8, 2007
From Bin Laden Expert [Michael Scheuer] : He's Winning:
The Intel Center, an independent analysis group which has studied the tape, said that bin Laden makes no overt threat, no indication of an impending attack upon America or its citizens. Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff has also said there is no reason to push the panic button now.
But Scheuer, [who] spent years tracking al Qaeda as the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit], is not convinced.
"The Intel Center is almost always right," he said. "I think there's an overwhelming threat in it. Bin laden, again, offered us a chance to convert to Islam, which is required in their religion before they attack us. So to say there's no threat in this message is just 180 degrees incorrect."
So do we push the panic button now? I find Scheuer's analysis chilling.
posted by notmtwain at 8:23 AM on September 8, 2007
The Intel Center, an independent analysis group which has studied the tape, said that bin Laden makes no overt threat, no indication of an impending attack upon America or its citizens. Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff has also said there is no reason to push the panic button now.
But Scheuer, [who] spent years tracking al Qaeda as the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit], is not convinced.
"The Intel Center is almost always right," he said. "I think there's an overwhelming threat in it. Bin laden, again, offered us a chance to convert to Islam, which is required in their religion before they attack us. So to say there's no threat in this message is just 180 degrees incorrect."
So do we push the panic button now? I find Scheuer's analysis chilling.
posted by notmtwain at 8:23 AM on September 8, 2007
I'm curious: what did 9-11 change?
Well, 9-11 didn't change much. We were just as safe now as we were on 9/10/2001, 4/18/1995 and 2/25/1993.
It's what happened in the aftermath that changed almost everything. From a political standpoint, it's no longer possible to be taken seriously unless you have a hawkish view of foreign policy and national security. This is sad, and is truly a great shame. Whether you believe that something like the Marshall Plan was launched out of greed or altruism, the will to do something like that will not reappear in our lifetimes.
posted by psmealey at 8:23 AM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
Well, 9-11 didn't change much. We were just as safe now as we were on 9/10/2001, 4/18/1995 and 2/25/1993.
It's what happened in the aftermath that changed almost everything. From a political standpoint, it's no longer possible to be taken seriously unless you have a hawkish view of foreign policy and national security. This is sad, and is truly a great shame. Whether you believe that something like the Marshall Plan was launched out of greed or altruism, the will to do something like that will not reappear in our lifetimes.
posted by psmealey at 8:23 AM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
I find Scheuer's analysis chilling
I've read his books (back when he was still known as "anonymous") and I think he brings a great deal of insight to the matter. While he has a great deal of knowledge on the subject, I disagree with this assessment.
Scheuer's assessments rely on the premise that UBL means exactly what he says. While some of Bin Laden's statements are sincere from his perspective, intent does not equal capability. And it is not a hard and fast rule that your enemies are being honest, in fact it's quite the opposite; all warfare is deception.
It's not the first time al Queda has met a prerequisite of attack, and yet unlike the past their recent truce offerings have thus far been either bluffs or failures.
"They have to say something now that he is back in the public eye, but if you look at the territory, it is impossible to find any single person up there, and we don't have enough people to do it, and we respect Pakistan's sovereignty. I guess they're not going to go into Pakistan."
That's demonstrably false, so even if Scheuer is towing the line as a professional, he certainly knows better. The game is that we operate to some extent in Pakistan, and Musharraf cooperates privately and protests publically. We didn't miss al Zawahiri by much when we "violated Pakistan's sovereignty" last year.
The strategic threat that the US faces from al Queda is that they will finally succeed in obtaining a nuclear weapon. (This is quite separate from tactical threats, where they could cause "mass disruption" or terrorize the populace -- I'm referring to existential threats, attacks that would cause a geopolitical shift like 9/11 did.) To date, there is no reliable evidence that suggests that they have obtained a nuke, despite multiple claims to the contrary.
In the past, their leadership has claimed to have purchased suitcase nukes in former Soviet republics:
Zawahiri later claimed that al Queda didn't have nuclear weapons or they'd have used them on Israel already. PSYCH!
My point is that we cannot simply take what UBL says at face value. By the very definition of war his statements are deception. There's not much reliable info that indicates possession of nukes despite their best efforts, to say nothing of the operational realities of smuggling it into the US, evading detection, and setting it off reliably.
I'm not saying it's impossible by any stretch and I'm not downplaying the threat they pose. I'm saying that the current environment makes a second strategic success for al Queda far less likely than is commonly thought. On the scale of strategic threats to the US, they simply aren't in the same league they were on 9/11, and their target is harder than it was then (though it remains impossible to "hermetically seal" a country.)
But as long as fear has political utility, US officials aren't keen to assuage it. That's a matter for another post though.
posted by edverb at 9:54 AM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
I've read his books (back when he was still known as "anonymous") and I think he brings a great deal of insight to the matter. While he has a great deal of knowledge on the subject, I disagree with this assessment.
Scheuer's assessments rely on the premise that UBL means exactly what he says. While some of Bin Laden's statements are sincere from his perspective, intent does not equal capability. And it is not a hard and fast rule that your enemies are being honest, in fact it's quite the opposite; all warfare is deception.
It's not the first time al Queda has met a prerequisite of attack, and yet unlike the past their recent truce offerings have thus far been either bluffs or failures.
"They have to say something now that he is back in the public eye, but if you look at the territory, it is impossible to find any single person up there, and we don't have enough people to do it, and we respect Pakistan's sovereignty. I guess they're not going to go into Pakistan."
That's demonstrably false, so even if Scheuer is towing the line as a professional, he certainly knows better. The game is that we operate to some extent in Pakistan, and Musharraf cooperates privately and protests publically. We didn't miss al Zawahiri by much when we "violated Pakistan's sovereignty" last year.
The strategic threat that the US faces from al Queda is that they will finally succeed in obtaining a nuclear weapon. (This is quite separate from tactical threats, where they could cause "mass disruption" or terrorize the populace -- I'm referring to existential threats, attacks that would cause a geopolitical shift like 9/11 did.) To date, there is no reliable evidence that suggests that they have obtained a nuke, despite multiple claims to the contrary.
In the past, their leadership has claimed to have purchased suitcase nukes in former Soviet republics:
In the interview Bin Laden states “I wish to declare that if America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent”. When Hamid Mir asks him he got the weapons, bin Laden tells him to go to the next question.There was a hellish scare in late 2001 when US intelligence received multiple reports from reliable, disparate sources that there was a nuclear threat from al Queda to the US homeland. The action taken in response was comprehensive, from shuttling US officials to "undisclosed locations" to actually threatening Pakistan with nuclear annihilation unless we were granted unfettered, surprise access to secure their facilities (which we got) and everything in between. The threat never came to fruition, and the discoveries borne from the response to the scare yielded the opposite conclusions.
Mir recalled telling al-Zawahiri it was difficult to believe that Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons when the terror network didn't have the equipment to maintain or use them.
Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri laughed and he said 'Mr. Mir, if you have $30 million, go to the black market in central Asia, contact any disgruntled Soviet scientist, and a lot of ... smart briefcase bombs are available”. "They have contacted us, we sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other central Asian states and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase bombs," Mir quoted al-Zawahiri as saying.
Zawahiri later claimed that al Queda didn't have nuclear weapons or they'd have used them on Israel already. PSYCH!
My point is that we cannot simply take what UBL says at face value. By the very definition of war his statements are deception. There's not much reliable info that indicates possession of nukes despite their best efforts, to say nothing of the operational realities of smuggling it into the US, evading detection, and setting it off reliably.
I'm not saying it's impossible by any stretch and I'm not downplaying the threat they pose. I'm saying that the current environment makes a second strategic success for al Queda far less likely than is commonly thought. On the scale of strategic threats to the US, they simply aren't in the same league they were on 9/11, and their target is harder than it was then (though it remains impossible to "hermetically seal" a country.)
But as long as fear has political utility, US officials aren't keen to assuage it. That's a matter for another post though.
posted by edverb at 9:54 AM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
In January 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi killed two people on the street outside the CIA headquarters and fled to the same Afghanistan/Pakistan border region where bin Laden is probably hiding, where the FBI captured him in June 1997. Kill two people, we track you down. Plan an attack that kills 3,000 people, and you're "not a top priority."
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama bin Laden tried to get Saudi Arabia to back a pan-Arabic army that he'd lead to liberate Kuwait. Saudi Arabia had the US intervene instead.
Planning the attack was smart, but the only smarts required from the people executing the attacks was the ability to fly the planes. Most of the hijackers were muscle.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:30 AM on September 8, 2007
Iraq isn't a country he's ever cared much about.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama bin Laden tried to get Saudi Arabia to back a pan-Arabic army that he'd lead to liberate Kuwait. Saudi Arabia had the US intervene instead.
there are probably very few smart people willing to pull off suicide attacks and they were mostly used up in September 11
Planning the attack was smart, but the only smarts required from the people executing the attacks was the ability to fly the planes. Most of the hijackers were muscle.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:30 AM on September 8, 2007
the only smarts required from the people executing the attacks was the ability to fly the planes
The 19 hijackers were covert operatives on foreign soil for years. All were educated, multi-lingual, undercover and at constant risk of discovery while supporting themselves and their mission financially, doing the reconnaissance and logistics, and (quite amazingly) training for their mission in US flight schools.
They arrived at least a year in advance of the attacks with the adequate documentation, maintained contact with the other attack teams, their individual support teams and al Queda HQ. They selected the right planes (all 757s & 767s), flights (all cross continental, loaded with fuel and light on passengers who could resist) and airports (three of the four teams flew out of unique airports.) They planned the attacks to the minute (all took off within moments of each other except for Ft. 93), all succeeded in commandeering the aircraft after it reached cruising altitude, and none were discovered until it was too late to stop them.
A-Team indeed. Hannibal Smith couldn't have done it better. Compare that level of professionalism (and willingness to die for the mission) with the bumbling idiots we keep foiling nowadays.
posted by edverb at 12:06 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
The 19 hijackers were covert operatives on foreign soil for years. All were educated, multi-lingual, undercover and at constant risk of discovery while supporting themselves and their mission financially, doing the reconnaissance and logistics, and (quite amazingly) training for their mission in US flight schools.
They arrived at least a year in advance of the attacks with the adequate documentation, maintained contact with the other attack teams, their individual support teams and al Queda HQ. They selected the right planes (all 757s & 767s), flights (all cross continental, loaded with fuel and light on passengers who could resist) and airports (three of the four teams flew out of unique airports.) They planned the attacks to the minute (all took off within moments of each other except for Ft. 93), all succeeded in commandeering the aircraft after it reached cruising altitude, and none were discovered until it was too late to stop them.
A-Team indeed. Hannibal Smith couldn't have done it better. Compare that level of professionalism (and willingness to die for the mission) with the bumbling idiots we keep foiling nowadays.
posted by edverb at 12:06 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm coming very late to this thread but I just had a very interesting idea (that extends on other ideas suggested here).
1. It seems that the main reason for the tape is simply to show that Bin Laden is still alive.
2. But if he really wanted to show he was still alive, why wouldn't he just hold up a newspaper (DJIA, etc)?
3. The speech is quite general except for these topical references:
- he mentions that that Democrats were elected.
- he says that they haven't stopped the war.
- he says that Bush has said that the war will continue until the next President.
So it seems like he had to be alive six months or so ago... or was he?
Let's suppose I had a small team of terrorists with an ailing Bin Laden who wanted to keep the image of him being alive for as long as possible.
The idea is to generate a mass of tape with alternate versions that you can use to generate a contemporary-seeming speech with very few cuts.
Bin Laden would plan when he wanted the speeches to be delivered. They'd dress him differently and do all sorts of things to make it as though it was a different speech -- like dyeing his beard...
For the 2007 tape, he'd record various long speeches, but each one cued to a different future scenario. This one we saw was the "Dems win, cave on war, it will go on for years" scenario.
I didn't really watch the tape but if there are cuts, then that would dramatically decrease the amount of repetition than Bin Laden would have to do. You wouldn't need very many cuts per tape at all, four in a 10 minute tape would dramatically increase your cut-and-paste potential and no one would think anything of it.
There is no question that this could be done. People in Intelligence in Western countries used to do this sort of thing successfully all the time. Whether this was really done is another question that would be hard to solve -- you'd have to look for a *specific* piece of information that couldn't be faked, like the Dow Jones.
I read the transcript twice and I'm really not sure. It's tantalizing -- there's perhaps a little more information than you'd think possible to guess this way but then there might be a lots of material to choose from or he might just get lucky.
Were my theory right, you'd see an end to the Bin Laden tapes by the 2008 elections, because he'd be unable to guess the possible list of candidates from long ago and far away.
[Of course, he could be dying now and making these recordings, having an excellent idea what the list of possible next Presidents is...]
If so, it'd be interesting to speculate what else was on the tapes. Were I OBL, I'd record:
-- a tape gloating at Bush's downfall by sudden death/impeachment/resignation/illness.
-- a tape announcing triumph at a great terrorist attack/defeat of US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/the US.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:51 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
1. It seems that the main reason for the tape is simply to show that Bin Laden is still alive.
2. But if he really wanted to show he was still alive, why wouldn't he just hold up a newspaper (DJIA, etc)?
3. The speech is quite general except for these topical references:
- he mentions that that Democrats were elected.
- he says that they haven't stopped the war.
- he says that Bush has said that the war will continue until the next President.
So it seems like he had to be alive six months or so ago... or was he?
Let's suppose I had a small team of terrorists with an ailing Bin Laden who wanted to keep the image of him being alive for as long as possible.
The idea is to generate a mass of tape with alternate versions that you can use to generate a contemporary-seeming speech with very few cuts.
Bin Laden would plan when he wanted the speeches to be delivered. They'd dress him differently and do all sorts of things to make it as though it was a different speech -- like dyeing his beard...
For the 2007 tape, he'd record various long speeches, but each one cued to a different future scenario. This one we saw was the "Dems win, cave on war, it will go on for years" scenario.
I didn't really watch the tape but if there are cuts, then that would dramatically decrease the amount of repetition than Bin Laden would have to do. You wouldn't need very many cuts per tape at all, four in a 10 minute tape would dramatically increase your cut-and-paste potential and no one would think anything of it.
There is no question that this could be done. People in Intelligence in Western countries used to do this sort of thing successfully all the time. Whether this was really done is another question that would be hard to solve -- you'd have to look for a *specific* piece of information that couldn't be faked, like the Dow Jones.
I read the transcript twice and I'm really not sure. It's tantalizing -- there's perhaps a little more information than you'd think possible to guess this way but then there might be a lots of material to choose from or he might just get lucky.
Were my theory right, you'd see an end to the Bin Laden tapes by the 2008 elections, because he'd be unable to guess the possible list of candidates from long ago and far away.
[Of course, he could be dying now and making these recordings, having an excellent idea what the list of possible next Presidents is...]
If so, it'd be interesting to speculate what else was on the tapes. Were I OBL, I'd record:
-- a tape gloating at Bush's downfall by sudden death/impeachment/resignation/illness.
-- a tape announcing triumph at a great terrorist attack/defeat of US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/the US.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:51 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
For the 2007 tape, he'd record various long speeches, but each one cued to a different future scenario. This one we saw was the "Dems win, cave on war, it will go on for years" scenario.
He mentions Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown. This probably isn't what happened.
posted by the_bone at 1:49 PM on September 8, 2007
He mentions Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown. This probably isn't what happened.
posted by the_bone at 1:49 PM on September 8, 2007
A-Team indeed. Hannibal Smith couldn't have done it better. Compare that level of professionalism (and willingness to die for the mission) with the bumbling idiots we keep foiling nowadays.
And compared to our government and their actions, they look even better (and even more threatening, since we only have evil incompetents as our leaders)
And we have more of the same running: Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:13 PM on September 8, 2007
And compared to our government and their actions, they look even better (and even more threatening, since we only have evil incompetents as our leaders)
And we have more of the same running: Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:13 PM on September 8, 2007
Compare and contrast OBL to Bush at APEC: ...For, indeed, in speaking to an audience of business leaders at the Sydney Opera House, Bush may as well have shit himself and smirked while saying, "I pooped mah drawers." Not only did he call the APEC summit "OPEC," but he thanked the "Austrian troops" in Iraq, apparently longing for a time when someone like him might have been defended by the Austrian military. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:35 PM on September 8, 2007
posted by amberglow at 2:35 PM on September 8, 2007
I care about what Osama Bin Laden has to say about as much as I care about what Paris Hilton has to say. That is to say, not at all.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:08 PM on September 8, 2007
posted by ZachsMind at 3:08 PM on September 8, 2007
you should care, Zach--Bush does whatever OBL wants---always. And the GOP uses Osama and 9/11 every single day to keep us afraid and to get away with murder, elilmination of rights, and warcrimes, bankrupting us, etc-- along with ruining our standing in the world, and driving people toward Osama by our horrific occupation and destruction of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Giuliani: "For Me Every Day Is An Anniversary Of Sept. 11"
posted by amberglow at 3:13 PM on September 8, 2007
Giuliani: "For Me Every Day Is An Anniversary Of Sept. 11"
posted by amberglow at 3:13 PM on September 8, 2007
Giuliani : Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I have a statement I'd like to make: September 11, fear, terror, September 11, Islamic terrorists, September 11.
And in conclusion I would just like to add, September 11.
posted by quin at 3:37 PM on September 8, 2007
And in conclusion I would just like to add, September 11.
posted by quin at 3:37 PM on September 8, 2007
Brooks: In His New Tape, Bin Laden Sounds Like He’s Been ‘Reading Lefty Blogs’
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on September 8, 2007
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on September 8, 2007
In January 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi killed two people on the street outside the CIA headquarters and fled to the same Afghanistan/Pakistan border region where bin Laden is probably hiding, where the FBI captured him in June 1997. Kill two people, we track you down. Plan an attack that kills 3,000 people, and you're "not a top priority."
Oh, please...... The political difficulty of entering this territory for the US is a hundred fold higher these days. It was off the radar in '97. It is the most important thing now. If the CIA could send a bunch of crews into this area to smoke out Bin Laden they would. They can't. The people who live there support Bin Laden and won't tolerate it. Those same people basically probably never heard of Kansi, or if they did they did not care enough while they tried to eke a living out of that harsh environment. If Bin Laden has done nothing else, he has motivated the political passions of the region. His notoriety is his biggest protection. If he were some low life he would have been dead long ago.
posted by caddis at 6:29 PM on September 8, 2007
Oh, please...... The political difficulty of entering this territory for the US is a hundred fold higher these days. It was off the radar in '97. It is the most important thing now. If the CIA could send a bunch of crews into this area to smoke out Bin Laden they would. They can't. The people who live there support Bin Laden and won't tolerate it. Those same people basically probably never heard of Kansi, or if they did they did not care enough while they tried to eke a living out of that harsh environment. If Bin Laden has done nothing else, he has motivated the political passions of the region. His notoriety is his biggest protection. If he were some low life he would have been dead long ago.
posted by caddis at 6:29 PM on September 8, 2007
Brooks: In his Weekly Column, Sounds like a Frustrated Pinhead Who's Still Bitter About Losing His Virginity at 45
posted by psmealey at 6:52 PM on September 8, 2007
posted by psmealey at 6:52 PM on September 8, 2007
THANKS FOR SHARING!!!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:35 PM on September 8, 2007
posted by five fresh fish at 8:35 PM on September 8, 2007
The 19 hijackers were covert operatives on foreign soil for years
A couple of them were. Hani Hanjour lived in the US off and on after October 1991, and took flying lessons in 1996 and 1997, but that was before the formation of the Hamburg cell in 1998.
According to the FBI and the 9/11 Commission, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi arrived in the US in January 2000 (the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post say they arrived earlier.)
Marwan al-Shehhi arrived in May 2000. Mohamed Atta and Ziad Jarrah arrived in June 2000.
April 2001: Satam al-Suqami
The rest of the hijackers--Ahmed al-Nami, Wail al-Shehri, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Majed Moqed, Saeed al-Ghamdi, and Salem al-Hazmi--arrived in May/June, 2001. (There are unconfirmed reports that Salem al-Hazmi and Satam al-Suqami entered the US earlier.)
posted by kirkaracha at 8:37 PM on September 8, 2007
He mentions Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown. This probably isn't what happened.
But then I think, what would happen if OBL ever watched this episode of Saturday Night Live?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:53 PM on September 8, 2007
But then I think, what would happen if OBL ever watched this episode of Saturday Night Live?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:53 PM on September 8, 2007
That is great stuff kirkaracha, and I should clarify better.
True, much of the muscle entered months in late spring 2001, but the date of the attacks were not set until late August. They were almost certainly prepared to stay longer if it became necessary. It's not truly knowable as to what prompted the specific choice of the date September 11th 2001, except that they'd want to minimize the wild card of weather delays along with a few other considerations. It's surmised that Moussaui's arrest may have been the final impetus to set the date. Who knows...if Moussaui hadn't been apprehended, we might be talking about the May 13th, 2002 attacks, occurring on both coasts. (It's unlikely but possible as West Coast operations were certainly discussed, and it was Atta who phoned in the number of planes just weeks prior to the attacks-- which suggests the potential that there were other teams which weren't activated.)
While many of the muscle hijackers arrived months in advance, most were on different foreign soil, from Chechnya to the Philippines for at least some period prior to their final mission in the US. Several of them had lived in the US previously and a few were licensed pilots (likely selected as backups in the event that the primary pilots were caught, or incapacitated/killed during the hijackings.)
My point is, these guys were not unintelligent. Even the muscle were Al Queda special operatives who contributed to the final preparations. It is believed that Osama bin Laden selected these operatives personally.
posted by edverb at 9:40 PM on September 8, 2007
True, much of the muscle entered months in late spring 2001, but the date of the attacks were not set until late August. They were almost certainly prepared to stay longer if it became necessary. It's not truly knowable as to what prompted the specific choice of the date September 11th 2001, except that they'd want to minimize the wild card of weather delays along with a few other considerations. It's surmised that Moussaui's arrest may have been the final impetus to set the date. Who knows...if Moussaui hadn't been apprehended, we might be talking about the May 13th, 2002 attacks, occurring on both coasts. (It's unlikely but possible as West Coast operations were certainly discussed, and it was Atta who phoned in the number of planes just weeks prior to the attacks-- which suggests the potential that there were other teams which weren't activated.)
While many of the muscle hijackers arrived months in advance, most were on different foreign soil, from Chechnya to the Philippines for at least some period prior to their final mission in the US. Several of them had lived in the US previously and a few were licensed pilots (likely selected as backups in the event that the primary pilots were caught, or incapacitated/killed during the hijackings.)
My point is, these guys were not unintelligent. Even the muscle were Al Queda special operatives who contributed to the final preparations. It is believed that Osama bin Laden selected these operatives personally.
posted by edverb at 9:40 PM on September 8, 2007
AmberGlow: "...you should care, Zach--Bush does whatever OBL wants---always."
I care about what Bush has to say or do about as much as I care about Paris Hilton. If Paris Hilton walked up to me and said she wanted to fuck my brains out, I would say I don't care. That's how much all this matters to me anymore.
Stupid people with power are gonna ruin the world without my help. They didn't need my help to get where they are. they don't need my help to stay there. Nothing I can do will get stupidity out of places of power. Paying attention to them only encourages them.
"We're not talking about the third world war or who's not being fair
We're just saying they could drop the bomb and we don't even care"
I'm no longer afraid. I'm apathetic. Their petty arguments over who deserves the oil and who deserves the sand, or whose god has the bigger dick, or how many lemmings each side has which are willing to blow themselves up and lay down their lives over LIES? Immaterial. Either their violent stupidity kills us, or we survive. If it's the former, I won't notice a difference, cuz I'll be fuckin' dead. If it's the latter, more idiots will eventually take their place to try to violently and stupidly KILL US ALL. And I won't care, cuz whenever stupid idiots finally succeed in destroying the human race, I'll be fuckin' dead.
I'm done with fear. BRING IT THE FUCK ON ALREADY. Shit or get off the pot. I'll be over here partyin' like it's 1999.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:40 PM on September 8, 2007
I care about what Bush has to say or do about as much as I care about Paris Hilton. If Paris Hilton walked up to me and said she wanted to fuck my brains out, I would say I don't care. That's how much all this matters to me anymore.
Stupid people with power are gonna ruin the world without my help. They didn't need my help to get where they are. they don't need my help to stay there. Nothing I can do will get stupidity out of places of power. Paying attention to them only encourages them.
"We're not talking about the third world war or who's not being fair
We're just saying they could drop the bomb and we don't even care"
I'm no longer afraid. I'm apathetic. Their petty arguments over who deserves the oil and who deserves the sand, or whose god has the bigger dick, or how many lemmings each side has which are willing to blow themselves up and lay down their lives over LIES? Immaterial. Either their violent stupidity kills us, or we survive. If it's the former, I won't notice a difference, cuz I'll be fuckin' dead. If it's the latter, more idiots will eventually take their place to try to violently and stupidly KILL US ALL. And I won't care, cuz whenever stupid idiots finally succeed in destroying the human race, I'll be fuckin' dead.
I'm done with fear. BRING IT THE FUCK ON ALREADY. Shit or get off the pot. I'll be over here partyin' like it's 1999.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:40 PM on September 8, 2007
A coincidence that this shows almost at the same time that bush asks for support for the war on terror on the Apec summit?
I thought Bush was at the OPEC summit.
Actually, he was at APEX technical school training for his next career.
posted by FeldBum at 11:05 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
I thought Bush was at the OPEC summit.
Actually, he was at APEX technical school training for his next career.
posted by FeldBum at 11:05 PM on September 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
yeah, apologies. That was over the top. David Brooks puts me over the edge when I'm sober, but it must have been those five or six beers talking.
posted by psmealey at 6:03 AM on September 9, 2007
posted by psmealey at 6:03 AM on September 9, 2007
I know it's already a cliche, but surely the resonance of Emmanuel Goldstein is powerful enough?
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.
posted by Myeral at 12:43 PM on September 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.
posted by Myeral at 12:43 PM on September 9, 2007 [1 favorite]
Exclusively, Mind Hacks publishes a deleted section from an earlier draft of Bin Laden's latest speech that lays out his demands for the science of linguistics
posted by homunculus at 12:53 PM on September 9, 2007
posted by homunculus at 12:53 PM on September 9, 2007
Love that, homunculus!
I'm curious that no one seems to have picked up on his criticism of the media, which was perceptive, I am sad to say.
I'm struck again by how he does sound like a supervillain out of a comic book. And by how the media doesn't really accurately cover what he actually says-- for example, if I'd been writing about what he'd said, I would have definitely included the media critique, the various namechecks, the JFK thing and his obsessive use of the word neoconservative.
posted by Maias at 7:18 PM on September 9, 2007
I'm curious that no one seems to have picked up on his criticism of the media, which was perceptive, I am sad to say.
I'm struck again by how he does sound like a supervillain out of a comic book. And by how the media doesn't really accurately cover what he actually says-- for example, if I'd been writing about what he'd said, I would have definitely included the media critique, the various namechecks, the JFK thing and his obsessive use of the word neoconservative.
posted by Maias at 7:18 PM on September 9, 2007
also, his contradictory statements about Jews were curious as well.
posted by Maias at 7:19 PM on September 9, 2007
I'm curious that no one seems to have picked up on his criticism of the media, which was perceptive, I am sad to say.
Blogs have, but this is how CNN and other outlets and pundits have treated it:
CNN: In His New Tape, Bin Laden ‘Comes Off Like An Angry Blogger’
on the jews, he's right, historically--from the destruction of the Temple until the founding of Israel we had a safe-ish haven in many Arab countries, and we still have large Jewish populations in Iran and other places (who have no desire to leave at all, which they would if things were horrible). We never had Inquisitions or Holocausts or even expulsions from any of them, to my knowledge, until Israel was made a modern country.
posted by amberglow at 7:35 PM on September 9, 2007
Blogs have, but this is how CNN and other outlets and pundits have treated it:
CNN: In His New Tape, Bin Laden ‘Comes Off Like An Angry Blogger’
on the jews, he's right, historically--from the destruction of the Temple until the founding of Israel we had a safe-ish haven in many Arab countries, and we still have large Jewish populations in Iran and other places (who have no desire to leave at all, which they would if things were horrible). We never had Inquisitions or Holocausts or even expulsions from any of them, to my knowledge, until Israel was made a modern country.
posted by amberglow at 7:35 PM on September 9, 2007
in terms of expulsions i mean from the entire country, like we had over and over and over from Western European ones thruout history.
posted by amberglow at 7:36 PM on September 9, 2007
posted by amberglow at 7:36 PM on September 9, 2007
Latest Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze
Huh?
posted by homunculus at 8:49 PM on September 9, 2007
Huh?
posted by homunculus at 8:49 PM on September 9, 2007
I thought Bush was at the OPEC summit.
Actually, he was at APEX technical school training for his next career.
Oh, they have APEX schools in Austria, too?
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:04 PM on September 9, 2007
Actually, he was at APEX technical school training for his next career.
Oh, they have APEX schools in Austria, too?
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:04 PM on September 9, 2007
Ooh, homunculus' link is interesting. Can anyone confirm?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:32 PM on September 9, 2007
posted by five fresh fish at 9:32 PM on September 9, 2007
how can anyone confirm? can we get ahold of the original that was used for the new? was it a released one from the past?
i wouldn't at all be surprised by this.
posted by amberglow at 9:49 PM on September 9, 2007
i wouldn't at all be surprised by this.
posted by amberglow at 9:49 PM on September 9, 2007
New Bin Laden footage-
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380505.html
Turns out it was all a prank!
posted by asok at 4:33 AM on September 10, 2007
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380505.html
Turns out it was all a prank!
posted by asok at 4:33 AM on September 10, 2007
Turns out it was all a prank!
There's an open thread about the bin Laden pranksters (The Chasers) in Australia here.
posted by ericb at 8:08 AM on September 10, 2007
There's an open thread about the bin Laden pranksters (The Chasers) in Australia here.
posted by ericb at 8:08 AM on September 10, 2007
Just as Sylvester and Tweety Bird achieved lasting Hollywood fame from their comical cartoon chases, the less amusing duo of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to benefit each other by reviving their long-distance rivalry, one posturing against the other in a way that helps them both.
posted by hortense at 2:34 PM on September 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by hortense at 2:34 PM on September 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Intelligence sources contradict myth of 'Osama's cave' -- "A lot of people in the intelligence community have -- no surprise -- a very different view of the enemy and the battleground than the White House does, once again,"
posted by amberglow at 10:57 AM on September 11, 2007
posted by amberglow at 10:57 AM on September 11, 2007
Researcher: Bin Laden's beard is real, video is not
posted by homunculus at 8:48 PM on September 12, 2007
posted by homunculus at 8:48 PM on September 12, 2007
from there: ... Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:03 AM on September 13, 2007
posted by amberglow at 8:03 AM on September 13, 2007
« Older The Polar Slush Cap? | John C. Lilly, physician, pioneer, inventor... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Really?
Huh.
posted by dersins at 1:56 PM on September 7, 2007