http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404 Excerpts... The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera(1) on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state")(2) to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."(3) Another interesting aspect of the speech is the fact that while bin Laden made his specific threat to each U.S. state, he also offered an election deal to the American voters, attempting to influence the election by these means rather than influencing it through terrorist attacks.(4) This peace offer is a theme that follows up on his April speech directed to Europe, in which he offered a truce.. ___________ The following are the relevant excerpts from the Bin Laden speech; for the full excerpts visit the MEMRI TV Project at www.memritv.org: "Oh the American people, I address these words to you regarding the optimal manner of avoiding another Manhattan, and regarding the war, its causes, and its consequences. But before this, I say to you: Security is one of the important pillars of human life, and free men do not take their security lightly, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him explain why we did not attack Sweden, for example. Clearly, those who hate freedom have no pride, unlike the 19 [suicide hijackers of 9/11], may Allah have mercy on them. We have been fighting you because we are free men who do not remain silent in the face of injustice. We want to restore our [Islamic] nation's freedom. Just as you violate our security, we violate yours. "But I am amazed at you. Although we have entered the fourth year after the events of 9/11, Bush is still practicing distortion and deception against you and he is still concealing the true cause from you. Consequently, the motives for its reoccurrence still exist... "We had no difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration, because it resembles the regimes in our [Arab] countries, half of which are ruled by the military, and the other half are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents with whom we have had a lot of experience. Among both types, there are many who are known for their conceit, arrogance, greed, and for taking money dishonestly. "This resemblance began with the visit of Bush Sr. to the region. While some of our people were dazzled by the U.S. and hoped that these visits would influence our countries, it was he who was influenced by these monarchic and military regimes. He envied them for remaining in their positions for decades, while embezzling the nation's public funds with no supervision whatsoever. He bequeathed tyranny and the suppression of liberties to his son and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of the war on terrorism. "Bush Sr. liked the idea of appointing [his] sons as state governors. Similarly, he did not neglect to import into Florida the expertise in falsifying [elections] from the leaders of this region in order to benefit from it in difficult moments. "We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised. "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."
Man, you're cracking me up today. Next thing you know, they'll be publishing Osama's endorsement in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. . .
Wow - that's amazing. At no time does Osama say he wants anyone to vote against Bush. He even states that our security doesn't depend on him or Kerry. And you're already spinning it to say Osama wants Kerry to win. That's pretty despicable, even for you.
Well, according to those respected translators and some radical Islamist commentators, bin Laden's threatening violence against any state that votes for Bush. I guess he'd be happy with a Nader win, but a Kerry victory apparently spares your state from the terrorists as well. Here's a New York Post article on this: Monster's Deadly Warning to "Red" States
So, what you are saying is that we have an important choice to make on Nov. 2. Make no mistake. If we make the wrong choice, the risk is that we will get hit again and hit hard. Seriously, while you take a break from playing Abbey Road backwards ("Paul is dead"), go ahead and ask yourself why Osama didn't come out and clearly state that "US states that vote for Bush will be the targets of future attacks." He already said that we are idiots for not figuring out four years later that 9/11 wasn't because "he hates our freedom" so why would he cryptically hide this message in a speech where he also said that neither Kerry nor Bush could keep us secure.
The only way we can be defend ourselves against terrorism and other long-term threats is to have a robust economy. Another four years of obscene fiscal mismanagement would seriously compromise our national defense.
Look, Bin Laden is a mass murderer. He deserves to die. We, as a nation, will NOT be taking any cues from him, electorally or otherwise. And, clearly, he has allies on his side that we must find and kill. Namely, Sweden. It has become exceedingly clear over the past few months that Sweden does, in fact, have an army. An ARMY! They have a mililtary force, at the ready. This has been confirmed by the highest intelligence sources in our government. And now we have Bin Laden's own words, which have been examined by the same top intel sources, which clearly point to Sweden as an Al Quaeda sympathizer. So listen to me now and hear me later: It is time to bomb the living fvck out of those Meatballing Bastards. And I mean pronto. Kirk out.
...that, in a universe where we actually expended our billions on catching those who conspired to do us harm, would be less than irrelevant b/c UBL would be on trial or dead from refusing to come into custody right now. I often wish TIMELINE by Michael Crichton was real; I'd do a Doniger on some of you folks as quick as look at ya.
That Bin Laden is such a flip-flopper. First, he hits blue states on 9/11. Now, he threatens red states. Which is it Osama?
Well, technically one of the 4 attacks was targetting a red state (the Pentagon is located in Virginia). As for the tape...look, whether or not bin Laden actually endorses Kerry, the timing of the tape's release and its content (some of which sounds like it could come word-for-word from Michael Moore or Al Franken) is CLEARLY intended to hurt Bush at the polls. Osama is a nutjob, but he isn't stupid. Even the most diehard Kerry supporter can't objectively say that bin Laden didn't release this tape with the intent of hurting Bush on Tuesday.
One of the most friggin' annoying things is when people claim to be able to read the mind and motivations of Osama bin Laden.
Sorry, Alex, but this won't wash. Al Qaeda was responsible for the first attack on the WTC, no? And Clinton was POTUS then, no? It stands to reason that he truly doesn't care which person or what party is in the White House.
From the NSA information-processing control center known as a BC kegger no less... Alex knows! (read in your best "THE SHADOW" voice)
This whole thread is right up there with Guilani's insane remarks on Sunday's Today Show. He kept going on that Bush did the right thing by not trying to take advantage of bin Laden's tape, and lambasting Kerry for trying to take advantage, while simultaneously spouting the same BS this thread is perpetuating by claiming "bin Laden isn't supporting Bush or Kerry, but he clearly doesn't want Bush to win". Shut the hell up, you hypocritical **************. Now I remember why I disliked you so much before 9/11.
This guy blogs anonymously, but he's supposedly a respected Middle East expert. He says MEMRI's interpretation is bogus, and I think he's probably right. http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2004/11/memris_disgusti.html Key points: - The term that bin Laden uses for "state" can also mean any sovereign entity, so there there isn't much reason to think he's referring to individual US states. - Apparently, no commentaries in the in the Arab media support this interpretation of bin Laden's words (which is why MEMRI had to resort to a few chatroom comments to "substantiate" it.) Seriously, if bin Laden was trying to threaten Americans into voting against Bush, why would he do it in such an obscure way that American voters would need to have access to a particular, subjective and questionable translation/interpretation of the Arabic in order to have any chance of understanding the threat? And then why would bin Laden seem to contradict himself by stating that US security doesn't depend on whether Bush or Kerry is in office? It doesn't make much sense.
Oh, I think he cares alright. Clinton didn't take out 75 percent of his organization's leadership. The full 18-minute bin Laden video also included critiques of our "astronomical deficit" and the administration's connections to Haliburton. The world's most despicable terrorist ends his address to the American people with the following: "...the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth, and children for the sake of the liar in the White House." Haliburton? Liar in the White House? Whether he's simply aping DNC talking points is debatable. What's not is that he's singling out George W. Bush and appealing for his defeat.
Link? (By "link", I mean a link to a credible news source, not a blog or RNC-fueled lie site.) How in the hell can anyone know if "75%" of "his organization's leadership" has been taken out? Did Al Qaeda ever print up an official org chart? I missed it. Did we get the bodies of everybody we think we took out? Haven't seen verification of that, either. Remember that Osama's family has known the Bush clan, and thus Cheney, for a long time. They know about Halliburton (who operate in Saudi Arabia) and the Carlyle Group, and I'd venture Osama had heard of those "companies" long before most Americans. Oh, and regardless of who wins tomorrow, there will be a liar in the White House.
We've taken out 75 percent of al Qaeda leaders in place on 9/11 according to the CIA's intelligence data. From FactCheck.org's analysis of a presidential debate (under "Al Qaeda" heading): http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=271.html
Cool. I read it, too. In the two-paragraph passage entitled "Al Qaeda", there is no confirmation of either the "two-thirds" or the later revision "75%" being truth, it's just what people said. AQ is not a centralized organization, so how does anyone really know? Besides, CIA data has been proven...um...faulty in the past. While I'd really like to believe all this, I'm skeptical.