Here is a link to the BBC, giving the purportedly complete text of Osama Bin Ladin’s message of 2/11/03.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm
Please closely examine the text.
What can we, as the Teeming Millions, deduce from this text?
Please take this from an Intel Analyst point of view.
What I deduce from it is that it’s long.
I think the whole thing is very strange…
I said in an earlier post that I think we are bing lied to…
and now I think it even more…
I do not think that is Osama… why not put another video out?
I do not think Osama would refer to our “smart bombs”
I don’t think the people over there are more concerned that we have laserguided bombs than they are that we have any kind of bomb…
Please elaborate.
Like merge I found the reference to specific types of weaponry a bid odd.
I don’t think this is really Osama either, I think whoever is making these tapes did get closer to words he would actually say than the last audio tape we recieved (when he compared Bush to Pharoh). But maybe it is still the words of the Al Quaida, another prominent leader?. . . I don’t know.
Just curious … did you mean for “purported” to modify “text”? The link you give uses “purportedly” to modify “message,” and your change significantly alters the meaning.
I just don’t see Osama sitting there and hearing from his followers that they are worried about the US smart bombs…
That seems like what he was talking about…He said don’t worry about the smart bombs?? It does not make sence…
I can’t really compare his speech style to his last message because I don’t remember…
The whole thing just does not add up. I think Osama is dead, and that is why we have not seen a tape… I also think that the US knows this.
I think that we are going to “kill” Osama during this war to get the aproval from the American people… we willl find a 6’6" body and get DNA testing with a cousin in america…
The US is just looking to justify this war… This message will be viewed as the provocation to start the war…
He is pretty acute in his awareness that the Left in the West will be on his side, or at least, will not favor a war solution. But he has no respect for his allies, as shown in the following words:
"Muslims’ doctrine and banner should be clear in fighting for the sake of God. He who fights to raise the word of God will fight for God’s sake.
Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.
The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.
Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden. "
In bold, he plainly asks for all Moslems to join league with the anti-war “socialists” (i.e., Leftists) against the Crusaders (Rightists). But in the italicized sections, he openly re-affirms the Islamic hatred of Socialism/Communism, declaring the entire political ideology to be infidels, even if that ideology is supporting him in his temporal aims.
He obviously has no problem biting the hand that feeds him. He holds the Left in contempt, finding them weak, but is not above using them to further his own ends. He knows that the Right would likely wage war with fury and might and, oddly enough, OBL respects that - his words re: GWB did not show anywhere near the contempt he feels towards his socialist allies in the Western media.
He states his plans for using the Left against their own ends even more baldly in the passage that immediately follows the above, showing the Islamic world that there is precedent for siding with a lesser evil to defeat a greater one:
"The fighting, which is waging and which will be waged these days, is very much like the fighting of Muslims against the Byzantine in the past.
And the convergence of interests is not detrimental. The Muslims’ fighting against the Byzantine converged with the interests of the Persians.
And this was not detrimental to the companions of the prophet. "
Given the long discussion regarding the Afghani holdout, he is especially concerned with high-tech weaponry, showing a near obssession towards the subject. But then, if I was subjected to 15 days of constant bombarment, I’d probably be a little obsessed about it too. I don’t necessarily find the section regarding the weaponry to be all that puzzling: he wants to re-assure people that American weaponry isn’t invincible and can be faced bravely and successfully.
I also note that there was no mention of anything that happened past October, 2001, though I could’ve easily missed something. Given the vagueness of his plan of action and the lack of specifics, it would not surprise me to find out that this tape was recorded quite a while ago. No mention of the UN resolution, France/Germany, and the terror attacks in Indonesia? No mention of the Shuttle, or stock market dives, or anything??? Hmmmmm.
By the way, I’m obviously assuming that it is OBL, though I could be wrong. I’m just don’t think that the tape was made recently.
The reference to socialists is primarily to Saddam and the Iraqi ruling party.
This hardly supports the Bush administration’s attempt to paint Saddam and OBL as allies.
It sounds like he is willing to ellicit the support of the infidel Iraqi regime to fight the West, but his goal is to have Iraq become a fundamentalist Muslim country rather that the rather secular, socialist country that it is now.
What I mean is --that I’ve had 1/2 hour’s sleep last night, & am too groggy to Dope out the meaning of you question. Sorry.
What a dumb ass, I guess he forgets that when you dig a trench you have to put the dirt somewhere, guess he doesn’t think we know what to look for. Hell I haven’t studied photogrametry in years and could problably pick something out.
I notice that you don’t say how many lived do you? Probably not many.
I suppose you’d like us to fly over with bi-planes and drop bombs by hand?
I just noticed that he said 6% casualties, I guess you can’t simple math huh cause that would be 18.
I really don’t know what to make of this, it might be him, don’t know why anyone would want to make a fake, I really don’t think the US needs something like this to goto war, we will anyway.
Sorry, Bosda.
I was just curious to know if you had meant to cast aspersions on the text itself (“purported text” means “this may or may not be the text”) or if you actually just meant to mean the same thing the original site meant (“text of what may or may not be a message from Osama bin Laden”).
Sorry, Bosda.
I was just curious to know if you had meant to cast aspersions on the text itself (“purported text” means “this may or may not be the text”) or if you actually just meant to mean the same thing the original site meant (“text of what may or may not be a message from Osama bin Laden”). **
[/QUOTE]
Oh. I guess I meant both. Sorry.
Dude, you need sleep. 