Bill, Bill, Bill, we've been over this.
Sure, OBL hates Bush. He hates America, Bush is at the helm.
If OBL preferred Kerry, why on earth didn't he just say so? Why say specifically Bush, Kerry, doesn't matter.
OBL wants to be able to make a claim at affecting the election, whichever way it goes.
sozobe wrote: Bill, Bill, Bill, we've been over this.
Sure, OBL hates Bush. He hates America, Bush is at the helm.
If OBL preferred Kerry, why on earth didn't he just say so? Why say specifically Bush, Kerry, doesn't matter.
But he will attack regardless. Read my post again, it's pretty short.
sozobe wrote:OBL wants to be able to make a claim at affecting the election, whichever way it goes.
Maybe... maybe that's his backup plan.
Ps. I didn't mean to sound like I was piling on Dlowan. I for one read all of her commentary because it's generally very well reasoned.
Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. What I was disagreeing with was the concept that by knocking Bush he was automatically endorsing Kerry. It's not zero-sum. He hates America, Bush is the one in charge of America, he hates Bush. That doesn't mean he likes Kerry, he prefers Kerry, or that he's endorsing Kerry. He's saying specifically, Bush, Kerry, doesn't matter, your actions matter.
That's all.
Oh, I hadn't seen your post, Phoenix, I was replying to O'Bill. Just saw your posts now.
I completely agree with your first one, mostly with the second. (I doubt he thinks Kerry would be more pliable, definitely agree that it just doesn't matter much to him. Bush, Kerry, doesn't matter, America will remain his boogeyman of choice.)
My comments in red.
Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:
Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
(As long as Bush is in office, you are threatened.)
So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr. Did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
(Its the Bush's fault.)
So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.
This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.
And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.
You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.
The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at The White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?
If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.
As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief amongst them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
(Bush won't deal with us the way we want him to, so he forced us to attack you.)
Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterized by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the region.
(The Bushes' fault.)
At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.
So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretense of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.
(The evil Patriot Act is making it hard for us to kill you--we don' like it. Bush, Sr is taking over America with his sons. An anti-Bush diatribe.)
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
(Halliburton--massaging the Micheal Moore movie--playing against Bush in the election.)
This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.
All Praise is due to Allah.
So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.
That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.
Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.
(Trying to make their worst enemy look like a profiteer. Its all about the oil--Dem talking point.)
And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.
And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than 500 billion dollars.
(Like Dems, reminding America the cost of the war. Should be on the DNC's payroll.)
Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.
(Now, OBL is worried about America's economy...? Election politicking.)
As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
(OBL: trying to convince Americans he's concerned about our DEFICIT!? C'MON!! So, this is about OBL's standing in the world? This is loike a Dem stump speech!)
And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the blee-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.
(That's more of your money, America, that Bush is spending... You don't want him in office! Just put on a hajib, and follow me!)
It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you.
(Oh. He now mentions Halliburton by name. Dem talking point.)
It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within twenty minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.
It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50 000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.
(A la Micheal Moore and the DNC. Political, American political rhetoric.)
But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. We were given three times the period required to execute the operations - All Praise is Due to Allah.
(Is he running for President of the US?)
And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him, "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction - assuming they exist - is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."
Here, our hero is insinuating himself in the US political argument about whether or not Iraq was justified. If he's against it--I am firmer in my reslove it was the right thing to do. Please remind yourself who this man is.)
But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.
(Bush went to war to get rich. Fringe Dem opinion.)
So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying, "Like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth"
So I say to you, over 15 000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10 000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.
(I hope you're seeing the pattern.)
Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money.
(Bush the killer... Do you trust OBL's opinion? Ya think he might have his own agenda?)
And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorize the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.
Finally, it behooves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.
Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say, "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision." It is as if they were telling you, the people of America, "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes," And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry, "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."
As has been said, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."
And know that, "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.
(Here it is in black and white. Return to the truth--don't persist in error. Vote Kerry. Get Bush out. Wasn't Clinton truth? He attacked during Clinton's Presidency. He neatly left that out. I hope no one is buying his crap. He's trying to call the dogs off.)
In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida.
No.
Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.
States voting against Bush will not be attacked. That is clear.
And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All Peace be Upon he who follows the Guidance.
********
This is quite clearly a threat against Americans voting for Bush. I hope you'll seriously ask yourself why he would prefer Bush out of office.
No one will have to know what you do in the privacy of your voting booth.
I think my reply is contained in what I've already said, but briefly:
- Sure, he hates Bush.
- He doesn't take the chance to endorse Kerry, though
- Do you really think any current plans he has to attack America will change depending on who is elected? Bush, Kerry, doesn't matter. If Bush is elected, he'll try to attack. If Kerry is elected, he'll try to attack. America is an ace boogeyman, and OBL won't suddenly back off and say "eh, America's OK, we like you, you're not in any danger from us" if Kerry is elected.
Well done Lash. I'm guessing at this point, people either see that or they don't. I'm amazed... but not for the first time. <Shrugs>
Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.
"States voting against Bush will not be attacked. That is clear."
Nonsense, OBL was referring to nation-states
Kerry.
Bush has talked the talk but not walked the walk. Our borders are porous. Iraq is a mess. Did you see the thing Kerry said in the debates about iris scans? I mentioned it here, that I thought of you, but not sure if you ever saw it.
However, it's pretty apparent that you've already made up your mind.
Just saw your addition -- I'm sure everyone in both adminsistrations (Bush, Kerry) are well aware of that possibility, and all ducks will be gotten in a row between when the election results are certified and January 20th. Here's hoping the interval is in fact a decent amount of time.
panzade-- Where in his diatribe did OBL mention nation states? He was directly talking to the American electorate about how they could avoid another attack. It was the thesis for his entire statement.
Lash - if famous Arabic scholar Panzade translates "vilayet" as "nation-state" and not "state" or "territory" (as every other Arabic-speaker has) then the matter is closed.
Though maybe we're dealing with yet another telepath/channeller of ObL's brainwaves here <G>
soz- My concern is if we have a repeat of 2000. Things would be really up in the air, and it would be an opportune time for OBL to attack!
Right. And his conclusion as to how America can avoid another attack? It doesn't matter who is at the helm -- what matters is what actions America takes in the Middle East. ("Toying" or "playing" with their security.)
States don't take actions in the Middle East. America as a whole does.
I suppose the conservatives now feel that if they vote for Kerry, Osama has won. Good job Osama. I guess nobody thought about the fact that having Bush in for another term actually benefits Bin Laden politically.
Wow, posts keep slipping in just before mine... my "right" was in response to Lash, though it turned out to be sort of a response to HofT, too.
Phoenix, sure, but Kerry wouldn't take over until January 20th. Bush and his administration still would be in power until then. I'm sure everyone would work especially hard to get things ready and have the transition go smoothly.
