Colin Powell didn’t get the memo.
Hell yeah!
Off-topic, but does the surname “Sharif” (as in Omar) have any relationship to the descendency term?
jjimm, actually it does, but it is in reality a stage name, and not the moniker under which he was born. His real name is Mikhail Shalhoub, denoting that he is actually Lebanese-Egyptian (Tony Shalhoub, another popular actor of Arab descent, is also Lebanese); he chose the name Omar Al-Sharif as his stage name, due most likely to the cachet it would carry (the connection with noblesse, as it were). After acting in several Egyptian movies, he moved to Hollywood; he then removed the definite article from his last name (which basically meant “the sharif” or “the noble one”) to avoid its sounding too Arab.
And ‘luci’, I guess I should have qualified my statement “even the administration’s most ardent backers would have a hard time using this recording as credible support for their plans.” But he probably still wouldn’t have listened…
Thanks -
Greco
A link to a purportedly complete text of his message, courtesy of the BBC.
No kidding. Did Cheney find incriminating photos in the last couple weeks or what? Powell’s transformation on Iraq-Al Qaeda is astonishing, particularly his statements on this tape. Looks like he’s joined the any-pretext-will-do crowd.
Colin is the archetypal “company man”. What else did you expect when push came to shove?
I don’t know … has Powell spoken about the tape since his noon EST briefing yesterday? See my link on the first page of this thread.
Was he dealing with a true transcript? Let’s see if he keeps it up.
Another consideration – Bin Laden may have no love for Saddam, but that doesn’t mean that BL won’t support Saddam:
Actually … upon reading that passage again, Bin Laden is offering the Baaths a pretty generous show of solidarity. That doesn’t mean that BL will necessarily ORDER his best Al Qaeda fighters over to Iraq to serve UNDER Saddam. But I’d bet that BL wouldn’t discourage any of his minions from going to Iraq to either fight or lend experience.
Is it just me or would others here feel more comfortable if the Bushmaster had greco_loco on his panel of advisors? I never fail to learn something from his posts. Thanks greco.
I don’t buy it…
This newly surfaced tape, I mean. The timing is just too convenient. Plus: If OBL is still alive, he has access to a video camera. Until proven otherwise, I consider this tape to be nothing more than disinformation. Audio tapes are too easy to fake.
I smell a set-up.
That’s been a nagging question for me. It seemed like pre-9/11, OBL was constantly making videotapes of himself. So why has he quit?
Surely, a black tarp – or just filming at night – would prevent Western intelligence identifying OBL’s whereabouts by poring over such a videotape.
Or maybe he just looks like hell now.
Gee, why would the most wanted man in the world, with a multi-million dollar bounty on his head, want to avoid being photographed? Yep, it’s certainly a puzzle.
Has he in fact got a bounty? Who is offering the money?
Seriously, I AM puzzled. OBL has been a criminal at-large for years. Why was making videotapes after, say, the U.S.S. Cole incident safe, but making post 9/11 tapes unsafe? I don’t accept the same premises you do in this matter.
That’s possible. He looked awful on his last video.
We are, of course. $25 million, plus another $2 million from private sources.
Because pre-Oct. 2001, he had a safe haven in Afghanistan where nobody could touch him. That is no longer the case. If somebody spots him in downtown Karachi, he’s a dead man.
This is the Michael Jackson thread, right?
Usama was hiding in those mountainous rock caves we all saw on television right? In a purely secular way, I would like to note that Usama is a Very Evil Man. He has basically instructed the Iraqis in a strategy that is sure to get virtually anyone who tries it killed. Huge trench complexes, meet large application of firepower. Some Iraqis do remember the first Gulf War, I would assume.
Oh, IMO, It’s him. I don’t speak ten words of Arabic, but I’m starting to know that voice. He lulls you into a state of drowsy attention. He’s hypnotic.
Agreed, he does periodically when convenient. He would not call himself a “secular” leader I’d wager.
I see the martyr issue has been discussed. I would only add that senseless martyrdom for multiple tyrants fighting over turf probably does not appeal to everyone. Human nature, and all that.
Layered defenses against waves of armor was first employed with great success against the Germans by the Soviets - starting in about 1943. It is a great strategy if you are not facing an adversary with air supremacy, access to huge amounts of very accurate firepower, excellent armor, and accurate intelligence concerning the placement of your trenches. It helps if you have 200 feet of mountain over your head, then it works fabulously.
It was attempted in the Gulf War. I could find a cite, but I’d guess that the troops in the trenches suffered over 70% casualties. Sometimes, with a really accurate strike, whole units just disappeared.
Beagle, not to cast aspersions on your tactical planning abilities, but, as Mr. bin Laden so recently described, a numerically inferior enemy, with no airpower to speak of, survived quite well through everything we threw at it. Or maybe that was when you nodded off…
The incidents to which you refer occurred in very open areas, against pretty much beaten troops; the trenches were not camouflaged, and the troops manning them were conscripts, with not much in the way of fight left in them. I would be the last to defend any kind of trench warfare; the current stage of mobility in modern warfare, especially integral to US military operations, pretty much negates most static defensive positions, such as trenches.
However, it is a mistake to count out the value of properly prepared and concealed defensive positions, such as trenches and bunkers; they are considered to be force multipliers, and allow a relatively small number of determined soldiers to slow a numerically superior advance. As I pointed out, most of our concerns would be once we hit the cities; though dug-in and bunkered defensive trenches can cause problems in open areas, we are usually able to bypass or flank such positions (which is actually what happened in Desert Storm; I know of no event like you described, although many Iraqis in trenches surrendered quickly once they were flanked). Once we hit concentrated urban areas, such as Baghdad, much of our technological superiority goes away; as I imagine we will be attempting to limit civilian casualties, the massive firepower we have available will be of little effective use. The assault would require a bit more finesse, with much more specific attacks and tools; this would be the time when well-defended and concealed defensive positions could make things difficult for US forces. And, as I also assume, most Iraqis probably do remember Desert Storm quite well; in the past 12 years, they may not have been sitting idly by.
Osama knows damned well that the Iraqi people will not be allowed to listen to him, at least not publicly (I know that the Iraqi media will not broadcast the message, though it will probably be smuggled around on cassette tape); his message was more likely to brag about how well he fared at Tora Bora, just to stick a pin in us. And most likely there were more than a few “triggers” in his message, to some of the cells out there; it was a substantially long message, and included some interesting observations. I do think you can rest assured that the Iraqis won’t be using his advice as a guide when it comes to military tactics, though.
Thanks
Greco