Slashdot Log In
10 Years of Translated Bin Laden Messages Leaked
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Sep 15, 2008 01:27 AM
from the portraits-in-extremism dept.
from the portraits-in-extremism dept.
DragonFire1024 lets us know that Wikileaks has obtained 10 years of messages and interviews by Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. The documents were translated and the messages and interviews were authenticated by the US CIA. "The nearly three hundred page, 'official use only' packet from 2004, translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a division of the CIA, includes interviews with bin Laden from various news agencies and also includes messages he sent directly to the US from the periods of 1994 to 2004. One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admin (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning. For those who don't like to RTFA:
One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.
"Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," said bin Laden on September 16, 2001, just five days after the attacks.
To me the timing of that message seems far more relevant to 9/11 than a vague message 4 months prior that he could "make life miserable for the United States", "If the Taleban allowed". It seems that in as much as we've had to deal with manufactured evidence to serve the cause of the Bush administration regarding the Iraq war now it's clear that the CIA has also withheld critical counter-evidence that the American people and its allies should have been aware of. Could this message have been too sensitive to release? Well, they seemed to release other messages and video around the time of the event that helped make the case and build support for war..
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:4, Informative)
To be honest, I don't think any of this is at all surprising.
Sure, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will be able to make a new bunch of YouTube videos, but all the sane people realise that going to war was a sham anyway.
The office of the POTUS chose to ignore relevant information presented to them by other departments, and that there was some other agenda for the war in Iraq, that we are unlikely to find out for a long time if ever.
As the parent said, I think it may have more immediate implications for allies of the US who went to war based on the judgement of GWB etc. But then again, this kind of stuff on the Internets rarely gets looked at.
Speaking as a Brit who had similar bullshitting fed to them by our own Government regarding this issue...
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
why?
You don't think Peak oil, the fact that the US Dollar is an oil backed currency and the profit, and power that will give to those who control it is enough reason?
You need to take a long hard look at the kind of people running America... And i don't mean the puppet figurehead who is in place.
Parent
Re:If Afghanistan was for oil, where was the oil? (Score:5, Interesting)
Framing Osama bin Laden for 9/11 does not make any sense, it's just plain paranoid.
Actually, there's a fairly straightforward "theory" that makes sense of it. To see the basis of the theory, look up the media coverage of the WTC attack on 2008-9-11. It's fairly clear from the start that: 1) The authorities and media were totally taken by surprise and unprepared for what was happening; but 2) It was immediately clear who they were blaming. Within the first half hour of news coverage, the media was producing a steady drumbeat of "Osama bin Laden ... al Qaeda ... Osama bin Laden ... al Qaeda ... ". They didn't know who did it, but they knew who they were going to blame.
US government agencies weren't much heard from during the first day, probably because they were too busy. By the time they got around to talking to the public, they understood that the job of picking a scapegoat had already been done for them by the media. So they just went with it.
They didn't much want to actually capture bin Laden and his cohort, of course, because they knew that they had little evidence against him that would stand up in any court. He'd probably walk free, with a big propaganda win. From the viewpoint of the Bush crowd, his value wasn't as a jailed or executed criminal; his value was and is as a Foreign Devil. They were interested in finding and punishing the actual perpetrators, yes, but there was little point in going after Osama & Co when they were doing such a commendable job as Foreign Devils.
Of course, this is yet another theory based on sketchy initial facts and little actual inside information. But it does make a bit of sense. It acknowledges the usual government bungling and total failure to pick up on the WTC attack before the fact. It also acknowledges the media's penchant for fomenting mass hysteria and scapegoating of Foreign Devils. And it handles the puzzling question of why US authorities (government and media) show so little interest in hunting down the minor clerical figure who supposedly was the mastermind of it all.
Why not pick a scapegoat who is either easier to blame (like Saddam), or completely fictional (1984 style).
The public image of bin Laden and al Qaeda is mostly fictional. It's true that there are a handful of real people behind the names. But what people "know" about them is pretty much a media creation, with little basis in their actual beliefs or actions. The public Osama is a creation of Hollywood and media newsrooms, with little attention to the person behind the name.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning.
Erm, the "source" in this case is a known terrorist who issued a fatwa in the 1990s calling for Muslims around the world to kill Americans every chance they get. How "credible" can he be? Seriously, there is nothing new here. Bin Laden gave interview well into late 2001 claiming that he didn't do it. (And he probably didn't "do it" in any direct sense, since we know KSM was the main planner who put the operation together). But he has since given speeches praising the "magnificent 19" (what he calls the hijackers) and clearly taking credit for being their inspiration. Whether or not he had any direct hand in it, he was the leader of the organization responsible, and he had been calling (over and against other jihadi leaders) for attacks on the United States (the "far enemy") for quite some time. This message was not "too sensitive to release" -- it differed little from other messages he was giving at the time.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
From all that I read, it looks like al-quaeda is more of a stand-alone complex than a hierarchically organized group. I think most al-quaeda groups begin as independent entities, make a terrorist attack, claim responsability, get labeled by the CIA as "al quaeda linked group", get contacted or contact al-quaeda. (you can invert the last two steps)
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: IAAIA (I am an Intelligence Analyst)
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether or not he had any direct hand in it, he was the leader of the organization responsible,
Whoa... stop right there.
A terrorist organisation - or at least, one that's even remotely successful for any length of time - doesn't have the pyramid-style management structure that you're used to seeing.
Instead, it has a bunch of loosely-organised small groups, each consisting of no more than a dozen people. These groups may have a little communication between them but by and large they're fairly autonomous - they just use a common name to identify with the common cause they share. This is why it's damnably difficult to efficiently infiltrate the organisation - put simply, nobody knows much about anyone outside their own group and this is by design.
It follows that even if there are a few people who are considered inspirational by most within the organisation, getting rid of those few people won't necessarily achieve much. In fact, it could well be counter-productive because you'll turn them into martyrs.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Informative)
There have been political tensions on and off between Ireland and the UK since the fifteenth century.
The latest bout has more or less calmed down now, but at one point we were arresting and holding people indefinitely for the "crime" of being Irish in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sound familiar?
The problem with this approach is that as soon as you arrest a man who was thought to be fairly blameless within his circle of friends and family, most of whom were aware of the political tension but were otherwise fairly ambivalent towards you, they turn against you. Lather, rinse and repeat a few times and if you didn't have a terrorist organisation before you do now.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
It is precisely because of the fact that he called Muslims to a Jihad against the Americans that I tend to believe this statement. Mind you, Bin Laden doesn't say he didn't want to do this, he plainly states he was not allowed to carry this out by his Taliban hosts. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Islamic clerics who adhere to strict morals and a relatively exhausting honor system. In many ways it reminds me of the Purists, the Calvinists and certain Roman Catholic factions we've had throughout history.
Just because someone has a different religion than yours and just because someone's honor system makes them want to wage holy war against what you stand for it does not render everything they say null and void. I would be much more worried about certain other parties that seem to wantonly install, sponsor, demonize and then eradicate all manner of regimes across the world to further their (financial) self interest or because they misguidedly think their right cause is furthered by those actions. Because the former group is predictable if you know their morals and their honor system while the latter group is totally unpredictable and hence dangerous as hell.
I don't "know" who the main planner of the 9/11 operation is, and probably no one ever really will, nor is it interesting. All I know is that the USSR, the USA and the world at large are partially responsible for the situation in Afghanistan after the Russian withdrawal, and we "corrected" that fuck up by invading that country and bombing it some more while we're at it. In the mean time half of Iraq is dead and/or injured and I'm sitting here wondering who the terrorists are, because I'm quite sure the crunch of army boots on gravel, the roar of jet engines and the crackle and static of radio transmissions between soldiers strike terror into the hearts of Afghan and Iraqi civilians by now.
Here in Israel I see a lot of this. The other party in the conflict is not "credible" because they've issued Fatwahs and called for Jihad. In the mean time, most of the people you talk to feel that this is their country because the Torah claims they once lived here and the death toll on the Islamic side outstrips the death toll on the Israeli side at least ten to one. Religious War, anyone? If I were living in an Arabic town here that doesn't get decent schools or even a closed sewage system from the federal government because the "municipality doesn't receive enough taxes", I'd bloody well declare a bit of a war too. And if it takes religion for people to join it.... You get the point.
If you (us Western nations) beat a dog (most of the rest of the world) long enough, it will bite.
Mazaltov! We've reached that stage.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, if by "liberally" you mean "nonsensically." Bin Laden wasn't even close to being an "ex CIA agent." Chances that he met anyone from CIA in Afghanistan during the jihad against the Soviets are slim to nil. Steve Coll's book does a pretty good job of busting this myth.
No question OBL's gang of jihadists profited off of the CIA's investment in the war against the Soviets, but most of it was indirect. For example, it's true that some of the bases that al Qaeda used were originally built with CIA money. But that's a far cry from saying OBL trained under CIA on those bases.
Of course, arguments over that miss the forest in the trees -- the U.S. was behind bin Laden's rise to power whether or not OBL ever worked for the CIA. The U.S. strongly encouraged Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies to help out in the war in Afghanistan by stirring up Muslims with a call to jihad. The Saudis got clerics to issue fatwas and they underwrote travel and training expenses for jihadists. The way they saw it, it was win-win. Cozy up to the U.S. (we were selling them AWACS and other arms at the time) and get rid of a large group of potential troublemakers at the same time. Other Arab governments followed suit. You don't need shadowy conspiracy theories or phony news stories about OBL being visited in the hospital by CIA agents worried about his kidneys to find evidence for any of this -- it's all a matter of public record.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Interesting)
First, this is nothing new. Bin Laden has always denied involvement. The only time he acknowledged being responsible, was in some supposed sham video that was "found" in Afghanistan, and claimed by the CIA as some sort of smoking gun proving he did it.
Second, while I certainly have never seen a solid piece of evidence proving that he was involved... Him saying he wasn't involved isn't exactly proof of innocence either. He is after all a crazy bastard who thinks it's perfectly ok to murder people because of the country they were born in.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
"Who thinks it's perfectly okay to murder people because of the country they were born in."
Take a look at our soldiers and contractors and, hell, our government, and the treatment of Iraqis over in the sandbox. What right do we have to treat them like that?
It's incredibly naive to think that bin Laden is the only one who thinks that way.
And this is coming from a Staff Sergeant who has seen action over there.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
To whom precisely are you referring? That statement could apply to quite a few people with power these days.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Funny)
I wish someone had just assassinated that fucker...
Instead you re-elected him because Faux News said his opponent looked French.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
"Saddam had no WMD's"
It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this :
http://pukmedia.com/kurdish/images/stories/news_small/m4.2008/halabja%20kolag.jpg [pukmedia.com]
The halabja campaign ... a series of rocket-based poisonous gas attacks comitted by the Iraqi government (the fire order was given by the very son of Saddam) against it's own citizens. Nobody doubts it happened. But for conspiracy theorists it's a really very very very inconvenient truth.
After all, using those weapons obviously proves Saddam had rockets that distributed poisonous gas upon impact. Obviously every single weapon that does this is classified as WMD. It's true that they were not found. Given that Saddam actually USED those weapons that does NOT bring the question "did Bush lie ?", it merely brings the question "where are these weapons now ?". Unless you actually believe Saddam would shoot every last of his best weapons at unarmed civilians.
Can we please bring some common sense into this ? If we know a guy shot some children, then gets arrested with powder on his hands, but without a gun, that does not mean the witnesses who saw him shoot lied. It merely means we're short a gun. That would be a VERY good reason to search the neighbourhood for said gun (especially if the next door neighbour is a Jew hating theocratic massacrer like the Iranian government).
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unless you actually believe Saddam would shoot every last of his best weapons at unarmed civilians."
Or that he dismantled them. As he has said to other people, even in private. Why are you erecting a strawman ? The timing is all that's important here. Yes, Saddam used awful weapons on his own people. But that wasn't the question. The question was: did he still have them later on, and the answer to that, it seems now, is: no. Therefore, did Bush lie ? We don't know, but it looks like it an awful lot.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd have thought that one of the relevant points is whether if Iraq had some poison gas weapons somewhere, it was legitimate cause to launch a full scale invasion, occupation and installation of a more amenable government. After all, certain other countries that are considerably less likely to be invaded have much greater stockpiles of "WMD" than Iraq has ever had.
But regardless, the UN weapons inspector (both at the time and a former one) are on record as saying that they were not finding (and had not found) evidence of "WMD". If the aim had been to deal with "WMD violations" then the logical course of action would be to allow the weapons inspectors to continue. However, as it looked more and more certain that they would find no evidence, they had to be pulled out as the US was already beginning its invasion. The carriers were in place, the troops on the move. How much evidence is needed that the US-led invasion was not motivated by WMD in any capacity? It was always a pretext and the attack took place before it could be exposed.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Informative)
The problem seems to be that in this particular case, the mass-killer *didn't* lie. But Bush didn't get his information directly from Saddam, did he ? He can't just make a phonecall or something. Instead, he had to rely on the CIA, who also doesn't ask Saddam directly, but instead (as it seems to be now) is pushed by Cheney's office to produce damning evidence.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that means it's really Cheney's fault, not really Bush.
It seems to me, that Bush is more of an innocent idiot. Cheney however, knows what the fuck he's trying to do.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
Men's News Daily? World Net Daily? Buh?
From your Washington Post link:
From your Fox News link:
Hmmm. Way to support your own argument there.
So yeah, sure, he had some rotting leftovers, but not the massive "set to attack the US" stockpiles they beat their drums about leading up to our 2003 invasion. Yeah, not everything got dismantled. But, was that malice or incompetence? Looking back at that Washington post article:
Sounds like malice to me. Oh wait, no, that's incompetence.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it's impolite to mention at this point that we've just spent 5 years killing the exact same people we're demonising Saddam Hussein for killing, isn't it?
I guess it's really impolite to mention that killing people in a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't the means to attack us at the moment, and had no plans to attack us in the future makes us murderers.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
Saddam wasn't intentionally killing civilians as such, he was just killing villages with traitors, and the other people were just collateral damage.
It's no different than when we bombed a resturaunt because we thought Saddam may be inside, but he wasn't inside, though a bunch of civilians were. How are we any better -- because we're the "good guys"?
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Interesting)
No, there were *three* issues; one (the one that Tony Blair used) was that there were long distance rockets (to deliver a chemical or *normal* payload to Cyprus, for example), the second one was that he had nerve gas (to be delivered on the battlefield). The first one is a threat if you happen to live in Europe, the second one only when you invade his country (or live in it, but that was never really brought up in this context). The third one was that he had Uranium (the Niger letter) - against which there is no real protection on the battlefield. The first and third issues were definitely lied about, the second one was questionable to say the least.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
Halabja, March 16, 1988
Kuwait invasion / Persian Gulf War August 1990
Iraq War, March 20, 2003
I think once we already go to war with someone, then end that war, and then wait a decade, we cant consider anything that happened before that "evidence". After `91 anything would be fair game, but it looks like Saddam actually kept his nose pretty clean, He probably figured it was all he had to do to keep his position, and that bush wouldn't dare invade without a good reason. Little did he know how unstable our leaders were eh?
The claims the bush administration fabricated involved vials of anthrax and large amounts of yellow cake uranium and weapons grade aluminum with long range missiles that present a clear an imminent threat to America's national security. I don't remember the "For the people who died 15 years ago!" rational for war.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Informative)
The question wasn't whether Saddam ever had WMDs, the question was whether he had them at the time we invaded Iraq.
All of the evidence indicated that he did not, including reports from UN weapons inspectors who were actually working in Iraq at that time. By the way, in the month building up to the invasion, George Bush forced the inspectors to leave Iraq.
By now, there is plenty of evidence that the decision to invade Iraq was made long before September 11, 2001. You can bet that John McCain has similar plans for the event of his own inauguration. It's what Republicans do.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that anyone's disputing that he once had some rockets. However he didn't seem to have any when we invaded. The justification for war was that Saddam apparently possessed WMDs at that time and was preparing to use them. In that context, the fact that Saddam didn't in fact seem to posses any such weapons casts doubts on both the integrity or the competence of those who took us into the war.
You mean he was saving some to use against a greater threat? Like invading foreign troops, maybe?
On the other hands, rockets aren't guns. You shoot a rocket, you don't have it any more. What you're suggesting (to use your analogy) is launching an operation that could engulf half a city in riots, purely on the suspicion that there may be some more bullets somewhere around the place.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
***Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this :***
Not so actually. Do a little research and you will find that the attack at Halabja was originally blamed on the US's enemy d'jour -- Iran. It was not refocused on Iraq until America's great and noble ally Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, an action that caused him to morph into "The Beast of Baghdad".
Most people who have looked at the issue are pretty sure that Saddam Hussein was responsible, but it is by no means the open and shut case that you present.
***
"Saddam had no WMD's"
It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.***
Get a grip man. The fact that Iraq had WMDs in the early 1990s does not prove that it had them in 2003. In fact, it said it did not. International inspectors with pretty much unrestricted access to Iraqi facilities found none. And US investigators after the invasion found only a handful of chemical tipped artillery rounds of an obsolete type that Iraqi sources with no particular reason to lie said had been collected and destroyed prior to the 1991 Gulf War. If you've ever served in the military or worked for a large company, it'll be pretty clear to you how a few old artillery shells could have survived.
In point of fact, had Iraq had WMDs, it would surely have used them against US troops in 2003 -- probably with devastating affect.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority of his chemical weapons were destroyed under the watch of the UN after the first Gulf War. This is well [armscontrol.org] documented [usatoday.com] for anyone who cares to look. The whole argument was over the few weapons that couldn't be accounted for because of bookkeeping errors and the regular amount of chaos that happens after your country is bombed to hell. Bush did lie about the status of those weapons for political reasons, just like Clinton did in 1998, but at least Clinton had the sense not to try and take over the whole country.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
ROCKETS that distribute large doses of chlorine upon impact ARE WMD's.
And yes if your chemistry teacher were to make a rocket like that, that would be a WMD.
Parent
Re:idiot (Score:5, Informative)
Clueless civilians.
Chemical weapons are treated as the same sort of dire
threat by actual Armies that both Nuclear and Biological
weapons are. There are some very good reasons that those
weapons were basically used once and then effectively
abandoned.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Interesting)
I must confess I am already annoying all my friends in the US to register as voters and to do it right this time. It's a huge problem when the clever ones refuse to vote.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Insightful)
In this conversation? OK.
Don't worry about OBL. Worry about the Russian bombers in Venezuela. Worry about the possible share market crash when Wall Street opens. Worry about Pakistan allying with Russia if you cross its border once again. Worry about the unidentified sub seen in Japanese waters.
Then, at the end of all that, don't worry about it because there is nothing you can do about it. Be happy, love one another, and believe in yourself.
Parent
Re:That's pretty damning for the CIA and Bush admi (Score:5, Informative)
"On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be not only inaccurate, but also manipulative saying "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original Arabic. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."
- David Stein
Parent
and (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who stores local copies of these on their own computer and then get arrested/checked at customs can expect to be answering some very unpleasant questions.
No really, western security services are getting far too paranoid.
Unpossible (Score:5, Insightful)
"One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania."
I don't understand, I was told he is directly responsible for everything that is wrong with the world!
Nothing Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember Bin Laden denying the attacks. I even remember quite a few people holding up the defense that Bin Laden couldn't have done it because "Muslim is a religion of peace". (Not that the two really go hand in hand, but it was the reaction of the time.) What is interesting here is something I missed when I heard the reports back in 2001. The key reason why Bin Laden denied his involvement:
Bin Laden had a pretty cushy safe-haven there. He figured as long as he didn't piss off the Taliban leaders, they'd give him safe haven. And he figured the U.S. would not attack a sovereign nation. Which may have been true under Clinton, but he probably miscalculated how much the political climate was going to change once those towers fell.
Re:Nothing Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Bin Laden had a pretty cushy safe-haven there. He figured as long as he didn't piss off the Taliban leaders, they'd give him safe haven. And he figured the U.S. would not attack a sovereign nation. Which may have been true under Clinton, but he probably miscalculated how much the political climate was going to change once those towers fell.
First, that wasn't "true under Clinton" at all. Look at Clinton's speech of August 20 1998 in response to the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. Bush's first major speech after 9/11 was nine days later (9/20/01) and all of the main points are virtually taken verbatim from the Clinton speech. Obviously the US response was different in 2001 because the stakes were much higher -- it's a lot easier to get the American public on a war footing in response to an attack on New York than one on embassies in African countries most Americans had never heard of.
Second, bin Laden was banking on the US responding. I think he underestimated the size of the response and the ability of the American public to withstand American casualties, but he was hoping for the US to attack Afghanistan -- he believed that Muslims around the world would rally to al Qaeda's defense in Afghanistan the way they had in response to the Soviet invasion. That just didn't happen, not in any significant numbers (although it did a few years later in Iraq thanks to the U.S. blunder there). So I agree with you that bin Laden miscalculated big time, but I think the miscalculation was different.
Parent
Re:Nothing Surprising (Score:5, Informative)
What are you talking about? What evidence? Bin Laden initially claiming that he didn't do it? You do know that he later claimed responsibility [www.cbc.ca], right?
Re-releasing statements that we all heard on television back in 2001 does not change anything. It merely presents a clear retrospective of the events. Obviously, the documents prior to 2001 are of greater interest. Especially the fatwas (religious opinions) where he called for attacks on US civilians and military targets in an attempt to force the US to remove its resources from the Gulf region.
Parent
Re:Nothing Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
not that Bin Laden would ever lie... nor would Bush.. They're both angels!
Just because one's lying doesn't mean the other is telling the truth.
damn pirates (Score:5, Funny)
That's the movie script I was working on.
Some of the Messages (Score:5, Funny)
16 Jan 2004, 8:58am
Tim,
Can you bring some milk and bread over please?
Thanks,
O
18 Jan 2004, 5:24pm
What happened? I'm starving out here you know! I can't just pop down to the shop for supplies, it's a freaking desert out there!
22 Jan 2004, 3:42pm
Tim,
Are you mad at me? Is that why you're not talking? I'm sorry I was angry in my last email.
Just drop by, we'll talk and drink coffee. You'll need to bring the coffee though. And some milk and bread. Maybe honey too. I like honey.
O
28 Jan 2004, 5:30pm
Bob,
Can you check up on Tim for me? It's like he's frozen me out or something. I just want to know everything's okay.
Also, can you send me a few bottles of milk and some loaves of bread. Maybe honey and jam too. Oh, and coffee! Not that I need to stay awake out here. You never think you're bored until you're stuck in a cave in the wilderness. Luckily I've got ADSL here.
Thanks, and say "Hi" to Mary and the kids for me,
O
29 Jan 2004, 12:37pm
O,
I think Tim's gone. Looks like he left in a hurry. Typical of his type - I told you about him, you'll remember. Anyway, I'll get Chuck to drop over some supplies in the next day or so.
Look after yourself,
Bob
29 Jan 2004, 3:52pm
Damn it! I thought Tim was different. I thought he had commitment, you know? What happened to people who could take the long view?
Anyway, thanks for getting chuck to drop the food over. I appreciate it - there'll be an extra virgin for you in the afterlife!
Can you remind Chuck to bring a can opener? I don't want to have to shoot these ones open. Those soldiers nearly heard me last time.
Thanks again,
O
"Wikileaks has obtained..." (Score:5, Informative)
The summary makes it sound like Wikileaks has some kind of mole in the CIA who handed them documents in a shadowy meeting on a grassy knoll... Wikileaks only "obtained" the documents in the sense that "obtained" means "read about in a blog [fas.org]." The documents were first published a couple days ago on Steven Aftergood's excellent newsletter, Secrecy News.
I got one (Score:5, Funny)
Bush opened the note which appeared to contain a single line of coded message: 370HSSV-0773H.
Bush was baffled, so he E-mailed it to John McCain. McCain and his aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it at the FBI, so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA.
With no clue as to its meaning, the FBI finally asked Britain's MI-6 for help. Within a few seconds, MI-6 cabled back with this reply: "Tell Bush that he is holding the message upside down."
JFK (Score:5, Insightful)
The US loves its conspiracies and the killing of JFK is perhaps the granddaddy of them all.
What is intresting to see is not the theories themselves but how simplistic and wishful they are. You get the idea that conspiracy theorists are people who desperately want to life in an organized world where at least SOMEONE is in charge. Look around, check all the conspiracy theories and they ALL lead to the same conclusion. SOMEONE somewhere is in charge. That makes the world a lot easier to deal with. If you like the world as it is, then X will keep it that way. If you don't like the world as it is, all you got to is topple X. Easy.
With JFK you got several theories who could have done the killing, all shadowy groups that are claimed to control far more then they are supposed to. If only you could expose them freedom of the people could be restored.
Yet the intresting thing is what the conspiracy theorists neatly ignore, because they don't want to hear this, but is far more damning. That several groups had seperate plans to assasinate the president of the united states. For certain groups like members of the FBI this in itself is treason enough. They never actually need to put the plan in motion, even discussing it should be enough to earn them some serious time at a secret location.
But the conspiracy theorists don't want to hear that the world ain't run by anyone and that bad things happen just because one group/person went beyond talking, that makes the world far to chaotic and random.
There were people planning to kill JFK, conspiracy theorists are right, they just didn't carry it out, but for a lot of them the planning alone should still be a crime in itself.
In a way it like a Murder She Wrote episode, where to find out the killer she tells everyone she has the evidence and will be at location Y. The person to then show up to kill her, is the killer. Well not always, SOMETIMES it is a person seeking to protect the real killer. This is what causes all the weirdness around JFK, various groups who had been thinking/hinting that JFK should be killed trying to cover up that they might have been involved. Had someone they knew taken their words to heart? The cover-up happened even when there was nothing to cover up.
The same, in a far more complex mess goes for 9/11. If you look at it, you can hope that someone somewhere is in charge OR come to the sickening conclusion that it all was just a mess of people suggesting things, others listening, misreading, misjudging until you come down to a case where some people did something and others failed to stop them because nobody really is in charge and all the things that normally go right, suddenly went wrong all together. 9/11 if you like was an accident. The idea that there is one person at the top on either side who planned it all is wishfull thinking. Osama on side and Dick Cheny on the other NEVER wanted this to happen. Not 9/11 and NOT the war on terror. Oh Osama wanted an attack BUT not one that would end up with two muslim countries under american control and NO worldwide muslim uprising. Realize this, Osama got NO response from western muslims. There are MILLIONS living in the west, and that is where they stayed.
Dick Cheney and the likes on the other hand haven't gained anything either. High oil prices? So what? America doesn't prosper from that at all.
No, 9/11 was just one of those things that happened.
If you want to make sense of it, then Captain Blackadder said it best. 9/11 happened because it was to much of an effort NOT to have a war.
Nobody planned it, just nobody worked hard enough to stop it. And that includes US the people who voted for the people to incompetent to create world peace.
Wassup homies (Score:5, Funny)
Wassup homies. Just wanting to let y'all know thanks for plugging my 10th year anniversary!
Me and the Taliban Massif have got some great stuff coming out for the anniversary, including the long awaited Osama - The Best Of album. Which includes my duet with Britney Spears: "Afghan Rose (Best get yo' Burka on Bitch)". And my own take on that famous Bob Marley classic: "No Jihad No Cry".
All that plus remixes by Pete Tong, Basement Jaxx and newcomers The Scientology Crew with their remix of my gangsta-rap classic: "Pop a Cap in G Dubya (Smack my Xenu Up mix)".
Love,
Osama B. and The Taliban Massif
Parent