Arabic speakers: Was Bin Laden's warning to (American) "states" or to nation-states?

[toadspittle]

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

November 1, 2004 – WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow’s presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.

…

The statement in question is when bin Laden said on the tape: "Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."   

…

Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term **"ay-wilaya"** to refer to a "state" in that sentence.   

That term "specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee," Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a "country" he would have used the Arabic word **"dawla." **

Is this true, or just Rupert Murdoch-BS? Does “ay-wilaya” only refer to province-style “states,” or can it also refer to nation-states?

[Aldebaran]

There are several possibilities to express the concept “nation” among which dawla is one.
It is not a word I would use when talking about a nation that is a union of states, being outside that nation, not being a citizen of that nation and wanting to talk to a general audience inside and outside that nation. It is in such a situation not accurately describing the concept of a nation like the USA.
In my opinion Memri brings this up in a poor attempt to add weight to their interpretation. I wonder why they then didn’t list a few other possibilities like “balad” or “qutr”, who also mean “nation” or “land” in the meaning of state.

The most commonly used words for describing the USA by an Arabic speaker is “Amrikaa” or “el amrikiyya” and also " Amirika".

The literary name - which is the correct one - is Al wylaayaat almuttahida = the united “provinces” or “(es)states” .

So you can twist and turn this as much as you like, which is always done with such obscure “messages” from obscure figures.
I am far from giving “statements” made by this lunatic criminal any importance but what they really mean to make clear: He is still out there and he still has every opportunity to let his crazy voice be heard.

This despite the Great Heroic Speaches of the criminal in the White House who can compete with Bin Laden when it comes to a criminal lunatic mind and who excessed him largely in giving order to kill innocents.

Salaam. A

[Zyada]

Here is another take on this question.

[samclem]

@Aldebaran

This despite the Great Heroic Speaches of the criminal in the White House who can compete with Bin Laden when it comes to a criminal lunatic mind and who excessed him largely in giving order to kill innocents.

Salaam. A

Aldebaran. You’re in GQ. We don’t allow posters to post diatribes which would be more suitable to the Pit or GD. Perhaps you forgot where you were. Try to notice which forum you’re in.

[Squink]

Juan Cole discusses the wording here: Bin Laden’s Audio: Threat to States?

A re-interpretation of the speech, put in motion by the neoconservative organ, MEMRI, has been flying around the web, suggesting that Bin Laden is threatening individual American states if they vote for Bush.

[Roches]

Why would Rupert Murdoch say something that amounts to ‘vote for Bush and you might get killed’? Descriptions of his political views often include unusual prefixes so describe their intensity: ‘archconservative’, for example, or maybe ‘über-’ or ‘hyperconservative’. Why would a neoconservative agency make the same claim? Is it simply reverse psychology?