It cannot be verified that the message comes from Osama. The message gives no verifiable connection between Saddam and Osama. Hence, the message is no basis for action.
In any case, Osama’s goal is to foment hatred and to develop new converts to his cause. His cause is, foremost, to overthrow the Saudi government. The mere presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia was his biggest complaint. The installation of an American-friendly regime in Iraq would inflame anti-western sentiment even more. His hope is to inspire revolution in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and he hopes that an American invasion will do that.
If Osama does issue a statement, its purpose will be to incite action by Wahabi Muslims against existing governments. If he can help the US to attack Iraq, that helps his cause too (he thinks).
Oh, it clearly helps his cause, no matter who starts it… if Iraq starts something, then the US focuses full attention on Hussein and the spotlight is off of Osama. Also, the US probably kicks the “infidel’s” ass. All aces for him.
If the US attacks first, so much the better. The infidel still gets his ass kicked, and the Muslim world is given ample reason to come together against the American instigators.
Osama (assuming for a moment that it is him on the tape) is trying to pick a fight between two of his enemies, the US and Saddam’s socialist regime. What troubles me is that some members of our government seem to be walking right into it. I’ve lost a little respect for Colin Powell today.
Thanks for the BBC link, Beagle. I’d recommend that anyone in this thread check the source material before posting.
It does read that he was not, in fact, calling for Saddam’s ouster (a noun in American English), at least not at this time, and the initial reports were erroneous. Instead, he was just “allowing” true Muslims to ally with Saddam against a common, greater enemy. He did “disallow” fighting to support an “infidel banner”, presumably meaning the Iraqi/Baath flag. There’s nothing new or surprising in all that, except that (if it’s legitimate) it confirms that Al-Qaeda has not been a protege of Saddam. If that’s unfortunate for the war-drum beaters’ case, so be it.
The description of surviving the Tora Bora bombings and escaping, hinting that a good US/Afghan-warlord infantry patrol could have finished the job, is the most interesting part to me, but hasn’t been reported at all AFAIK.
Actually, I took “infidel banner” in that context to be referring to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. He’s discouraging soldiers in the armies of Arab nations allying themselves with the US. At least, that’s the sense I got. I could be wrong.
Glad to see the SDMB is full of skeptics who don’t believe propaganda. I especially appreciate the contributions of SenorBeef.
I mean, come on. Osama despises Saddam but wants all Muslims to oppose a U.S. invasion. Is this something new? According to Fox (broadcast), this is the smoking gun.
Give me a break! By that logic, France must also have covert links with Saddam since they also oppose a U.S. invasion.
Trust the Bush boys to jump on anything and try to spin it their way. Bush was saying the inspections weren’t working after less than one week! He and Colin Powell must think we’re idiots.
Problem is, national security decisions really are made by idiots, and not by the SDMB.
I don’t think even William Safire was claiming that Al Qaeda and Saddam were THAT well intermeshed. The boldest claims I’ve ever seen is that AQ and Saddam have some fellow travelers in common.
A protege is something that is protected, and sponsored. Perhaps you can supply a better word that refutes the inference that Al-Qaeda is a front organization for Saddam - that’s largely what the choice of war against Iraq is based on.
Well the answer to this thread is pretty simple to me. I dont see how this tape can prove any connection between AQ and Iraq. Some people are quick to think that there is an obvious connection, but what else can you expect from ObL? I would be surprised if he didn’t support Iraq, but that doesnt mean there is any actual connection between the two. ObL just doesn’t have anything else to say right now so he is gonna keep with the spirit of being anti-american, and the Iraq issue is the most prominent issue now.
bordelond, I haven’t heard that assertion straight up, either - but it’s implicit in Bush’s casus belli, and in Powell’s presentation of “evidence” at the UN. They have to try, of course - how else to explain picking the wrong target?
