Bin Laden speaks - New audiotape

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ming

Is anyone seriously saying that anyone would have stood in the way of the US if they'd decided to go and get him wherever he was? Including Pakistan?

[Ninot]

if it is Bin Laden, I see his offer of truce as a mixed bag.

On the one hand, Iraq doesn't look like its about to stabilize, and it won't for years and years. But America can't pull out right away, because that would seem like a surrender on Bin Laden's terms. I think this message makes any kind of large scale pull out a bad idea now.

But on the other hand, if you take him at his word, and by long term truce he essentially means that untill 1 side annoys the other again, there will be peace between America and Fundie Islamists, is it worth the humiliation of pulling out?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Fixed.

Pakistan is at least 4 times the population of Iraq, not to mention a MORE difficult place politically and religiously.

Whether you think Iraq was a good idea, or the biggest folly in the history of mankind, i dont know how you get the idea that invading Pakistan in 2003 would have been a good idea.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Ninot
But on the other hand, if you take him at his word, and by long term truce he essentially means that untill 1 side annoys the other again, there will be peace between America and Fundie Islamists, is it worth the humiliation of pulling out?

I highly doubt that peace will ever be achievable considering the Fundie stance on Western society in general. The terrorists can't be controlled by anyone in any sensical sense of power, like the various middle eastern governments or the religious leaders. Crocodile tears.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Is anyone seriously saying that anyone would have stood in the way of the US if they'd decided to go and get him wherever he was? Including Pakistan?

If wed sent a large force on the ground into Pakistan, that would likely have resulted in the fall of Perv, and the rise to power of pro-AQ elements, like Hamid Gul, with the support of the MMA and elements in the ISI. We'd either have to leave, or fight most of Pakistan. In either case it would have REDUCED our chance of catching OBL.

[Ninot]

Consider though that while Iraq is drawing in jihadists, there is room to believe that the Continental United States are just as threatened as ever. Nothing has improved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ninot
if it is Bin Laden, I see his offer of truce as a mixed bag.

On the one hand, Iraq doesn't look like its about to stabilize, and it won't for years and years. But America can't pull out right away, because that would seem like a surrender on Bin Laden's terms. I think this message makes any kind of large scale pull out a bad idea now.

But on the other hand, if you take him at his word, and by long term truce he essentially means that untill 1 side annoys the other again, there will be peace between America and Fundie Islamists, is it worth the humiliation of pulling out?

note, hes not only asking for a withdrawl from Iraq, but from Afghanistan as well. He wants to regain control of one or more Islamic states. having done so he will proceed to try to take more - a goal which will be consideraly eased by his appearance of strength, and the wests of weakness.

Note that he attacked the US on 9/11 BEFORE we were in Iraq or Afghanistan. He attacked US embassies in africa, and the USS cole, before Bush was prez. This is an extension of a longer war. What he wants from us is, at a minimum, withdrawl of support for any regime in the region he opposes. At a maximum (looking at the Qutbist ideology that sees the existence of the western model as a standing threat to Islamic life) he wants considerably more.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If wed sent a large force on the ground into Pakistan, that would likely have resulted in the fall of Perv, and the rise to power of pro-AQ elements, like Hamid Gul, with the support of the MMA and elements in the ISI. We'd either have to leave, or fight most of Pakistan. In either case it would have REDUCED our chance of catching OBL.

I disagree. Not right after 9/11 and without a US invasion of Iraq.
Not even trying: that reduced your chances of getting Bin Laden.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


note, hes not only asking for a withdrawl from Iraq, but from Afghanistan as well. He wants to regain control of one or more Islamic states. having done so he will proceed to try to take more - a goal which will be consideraly eased by his appearance of strength, and the wests of weakness.

Note that he attacked the US on 9/11 BEFORE we were in Iraq or Afghanistan. He attacked US embassies in africa, and the USS cole, before Bush was prez. This is an extension of a longer war. What he wants from us is, at a minimum, withdrawl of support for any regime in the region he opposes. At a maximum (looking at the Qutbist ideology that sees the existence of the western model as a standing threat to Islamic life) he wants considerably more.

His reasons for truce are highly suspect, yes, but...

Weren't his original reasons for attacks on the U.S. because of their extended, and unwelcome, presence in the Middle East, such as bases in Kuwait and Arabia?

Not looking at the Qutbist ideology, how far back does his aggression go, and why?

[Pekka]

Weird. Show of weakness. Very weird, I think this should be analyzed further.

It seems too weird to offer truce even if weak. Makes no sense. I would try to analyze this and see what happens. Can't say if this means they are only faking, or telling the truth. Faking would make sense, telling the truth does not.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Ninot


His reasons for truce are highly suspect, yes, but...

Weren't his original reasons for attacks on the U.S. because of their extended, and unwelcome, presence in the Middle East, such as bases in Kuwait and Arabia?

Not looking at the Qutbist ideology, how far back does his aggression go, and why?

The Crusades, if I can remember from his early rantings.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ninot

His reasons for truce are highly suspect, yes, but...

Weren't his original reasons for attacks on the U.S. because of their extended, and unwelcome, presence in the Middle East, such as bases in Kuwait and Arabia?

If you believe him. It was that, plus sanctions on Iraq and support for Israel. But hes also had issues with western support for East Timor, for the rebels in Sudan, etc. Some folks look at the claims and aspirations of the extremist movement hes part of, the ideologues he follows, etc - you get a bigger picture that way than just by looking at his public statements. There are several books on this, its really way to big an issue for comment here.

Not looking at the Qutbist ideology, how far back does his aggression go, and why?

Again, it depends on how you define "him". Zawahiri was part of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which murdered Anwar Sadat, and fought to establish a radical Jihadi regime in Egypt. But Osama wasnt there at the time, so do you attribute that to him? Upto the early 90s he was focused on establishing influence over the jihadis in Afghanistan, who were still fighting the Soviets. No time for anything else. Then he focused on the US, allegedly cause of the US presence in SA. Note that its KSA where the US military presence per se is the big issue for him, cause KSA is one of the few regimes thats "OK" domestically. All the other regimes in the Islamic world are enemies cause theyre "kufir" - heretical, anti-islamic.

[Timexwatch]

Nobody should take this offer of a truce seriously. Like the radicals in the Palestinian territories, truces are usually times to rebuild, rearm and retrain in anticipation of another fight. The strategy is stright from the Koran. Don't think it'll be a lasting peace.

Also, the security services in DC must be real paranoid right now. I can see the Secret Service in black outfits on the roof of the Old Executive building from where I'm sitting now. Looks like they have some mysterious bags and cases on their position. Looks like rifles and/or SAMs.

[Pekka]

Time, right, right, but this still seems odd. You know, if they need time to rebuild and rearm.. why would they make it THIS obvious????

Doesn't make sense. They can't seriously believe the US and the coalition and rest of the world expects the truce to last, and basically not see through this. 6 year old kids know better. So this is very odd. IF they need to rearm, they should just keep boasting with new messages how everything will go to crappers soon and that's it. This sign of weakness is not what I expected.

Then again, it's not like I expect them to do strong strikes now on a row, appearing weak, coming on strong. That's just not their style.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Is anyone seriously saying that anyone would have stood in the way of the US if they'd decided to go and get him wherever he was? Including Pakistan?

If he is hiding there, he has quite a bit of support in the pashtun tribal area. barring a prolonged and massive nuclear bombardment we won't be able to get him.

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


The Crusades, if I can remember from his early rantings.

Nope, they go further back to when the Christians repelled the Muslims from Spain.