[icruise]

Originally posted by vmarks:

It is interesting to say the least, the coincidence of word choice that survives even after translation.

I can't believe you people are stooping so low as to make an issue out of this. Because bin Laden and the Democrats both say something similar about Bush, that means that the Democrats are now terrorists and Bush is correct? Yeah, that makes sense.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I can't believe you people are stooping so low as to make an issue out of this. Because bin Laden and the Democrats both say something similar about Bush, that means that the Democrats are now terrorists and the Bush is correct? Yeah, that makes sense.

It seems as desperate as all those people who look at random election predictors for comfort. In all probability a side-by-side comparison of OBL and Bush/Republican/extremist talking points regarding God, war, etc could also be made. OMG, they all use cliches like "it's in your hands now," stop the presses!

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I can't believe you people are stooping so low as to make an issue out of this. Because bin Laden and the Democrats both say something similar about Bush, that means that the Democrats are now terrorists and Bush is correct? Yeah, that makes sense.

Ghandi and Hitler are sitting on a bench next to vmarks and pachead. Hitler looks up and says "the sky is blue". Ghandi looks up and says "gee, your'e right, the sky IS blue"
vmarks and pachead accuse Ghandi of supporting Hitler.

see? it all makes sense.

Listen, buckos, the fact that Bush is incompetent and dangerous is patently obvious to everyone who is not a bush supporter, that includes even people who are republicans, even people who were former terrorist experts, statemen and women, previous presidents.....are you going to accuse them ALL of supporting Bin Ladin?
Are you really going to do that?

[shmerek]

Fact: Bush has not kept the USA safe, it was under his watch that the terrorist attack occured.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Fact: Bush has not kept the USA safe, it was under his watch that the terrorist attack occured.

don't forget...
the anthrax killer (never caught)
the guy with the exploding shoes
the washington DC sniper (finally caught, not through homeland security)
the hiway 270 sniper in Ohio (finally caught, not through homeland security)


and all those AFTER 9/11....funny how we never hear about those as incidents of terrorism?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I can't believe you people are stooping so low as to make an issue out of this. Because bin Laden and the Democrats both say something similar about Bush, that means that the Democrats are now terrorists and Bush is correct? Yeah, that makes sense.

I can't believe it doesn't give you pause to reflect on positions adopted by a man who delights in killing Americans.

Bin Ladin is not becoming more moderate, so if his positions resemble your own, consider if your positions are becoming more extreme.

[icruise]

What do you say to this?

Al-Jazeera executives said they decided to post the entire speech because rumors were circulating that the network omitted parts that "had direct threats toward specific states, which was totally untrue."

[shmerek]

Originally posted by warmspit:
don't forget...
the anthrax killer (never caught)
the guy with the exploding shoes
the washington DC sniper (finally caught, not through homeland security)
the hiway 270 sniper in Ohio (finally caught, not through homeland security)


and all those AFTER 9/11....funny how we never hear about those as incidents of terrorism?

[icruise]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I can't believe it doesn't give you pause to reflect on positions adopted by a man who delights in killing Americans.

Bin Ladin is not becoming more moderate, so if his positions resemble your own, consider if your positions are becoming more extreme.

If we shared opinions on terrorism, the value of human life, or morality, maybe. But we don't. We share a few opinions that most of the world, aside from Bush's supporters, shares. Big deal.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yep, bring on the cheap insults you liberal terrorist lovers.

So, is anyone who isn't conservative now a "liberal terrorist lover"? You disgust me. You are part of the problem in the US today. You'd as readily see anyone who doesn't share your political views as dead. I think a lot of Americans would be ashamed of you.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by y0y0:
You disgust me.

Don't wear your panties too tight boy. Chill out & relax.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I can't believe it doesn't give you pause to reflect on positions adopted by a man who delights in killing Americans.
Bin Ladin is not becoming more moderate, so if his positions resemble your own, consider if your positions are becoming more extreme.

What about certain "Americans" (as well as Macnn members) who revel in the deaths of Iraqis? I don't really see a difference.

[Taliesin]

Hmm, maybe Osama Bin Ladin uses Michael Moore's talking points, because he really wants that the americans vote Kerry, or maybe he knows that the americans do the opposite of what terrorists tell them to do, and really wants Bush to be reelected, or maybe he knows that americans are clever and know that Osama Bin Ladin wants you to think the latter and so it's better to vote Kerry, or, maybe damn, now it gets really complicated...

If that tape was really from Osama Bin Ladin, which I'm not completely convinced yet, then it should be clear that OBL doesn't care at all who gets elected: If Bush is reelected Osama Bin Ladin has his favourite enemy for four more years, that provocative crusade-figure, that is such a great recruitment-tool, that one who brings american troops to his reach, so that the Al-Kaida-members can reach their martyrdom either by successfully killing american soldiers or by being killed by american soldiers.
If Kerry is elected, OBL can sell it as due to his influence, due to his scare-tactic with the tape...

It's a win-win-situation for OBL, eventhough he clearly prefers Bush over Kerry.

Taliesin

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
Not sure about 2 But I can sure name you one. The 1993 WTC bombing.

Thanks for proving my point

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
NOt as actively as this president is. When you are offered the head of a terrorist organization basically on a silver platter and DON'T take him 3 times. To me that is NOT fighting terrorism. Firing some missles is not fighting terrorism.

How did Clinton Fight terrorism?

You mean like Bush handled Al Zarqawi? The man now worth as much as OBL.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I can't believe it doesn't give you pause to reflect on positions adopted by a man who delights in killing Americans.

Bin Ladin is not becoming more moderate, so if his positions resemble your own, consider if your positions are becoming more extreme.

look further up to see my analogy with you, pachead, ghandi and hitler. Maybe you'll learn something.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by warmspit:
look further up to see my analogy with you, pachead, ghandi and hitler. Maybe you'll learn something.

I saw it. All it shows is that you know how to use emotionally charged hyperbole. There's nothing to learn other than it adds to the stack of posts that show you once were able to talk to people who didn't agree with you on matters political, but since have become so extreme, so intemperate as to have to call up comparisons to Hitler in order to try and score points, rather than make them.

It's really very sad that it has come to this.

[icruise]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I saw it. All it shows is that you know how to use emotionally charged hyperbole. There's nothing to learn other than it adds to the stack of posts that show you once were able to talk to people who didn't agree with you on matters political, but since have become so extreme, so intemperate as to have to call up comparisons to Hitler in order to try and score points, rather than make them.

It's really very sad that it has come to this.

I take offense at that, sir. You've done the very thing you accuse us of by comparing us to bin Laden.

[Spliffdaddy]

It isn't sad at all.

It's what a loser does by his very nature.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I take offense at that, sir. You've done the very thing you accuse us of by comparing us to bin Laden.

Have a care who you levy that charge at: I made no comparison. I do not accuse you of reveling in the deaths of Americans, all I did was express wonderment that the fact that a man who does delight in American death holds views that echo the same themes, same words as many of the American political left and democrat party, and my opinion that it should prompt reflection on those views.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have a care who you levy that charge at: I made no comparison. I do not accuse you of reveling in the deaths of Americans, all I did was express wonderment that the fact that a man who does delight in American death holds views that echo the same themes, same words as many of the American political left and democrat party, and my opinion that it should prompt reflection on those views.

Care to back that up?

And perhaps those Damn Liberals� have shown that they understand the enemy? That is the first step to victory.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

BS

[warmspit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I saw it. All it shows is that you know how to use emotionally charged hyperbole. There's nothing to learn other than it adds to the stack of posts that show you once were able to talk to people who didn't agree with you on matters political, but since have become so extreme, so intemperate as to have to call up comparisons to Hitler in order to try and score points, rather than make them.

It's really very sad that it has come to this.

no, you're the sad one, I'm afraid. You need to take some time to reflect on your own hypocrisy, here.
You compare dems to OBL and when I use ghandi and hitler to point out how wrong your comparison is, you accuse me of being intemperate.

I am not the one who became extreme...this board did. I simply became weary of the that intolerance on bigotry. When I call attention to bigotry, does that make me a bigot?

in your mind, I'm sure it does. Don't worry, I'll shake the dust of you off my boots soon, and you may continue your little corner of thuggery, hatred and vitriol disquised as political discussion.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have a care who you levy that charge at: I made no comparison. I do not accuse you of reveling in the deaths of Americans, all I did was express wonderment that the fact that a man who does delight in American death holds views that echo the same themes, same words as many of the American political left and democrat party, and my opinion that it should prompt reflection on those views.

yeah, that's not a comparsion, or the fallacy of guilt by association...nosiree, not enlightened intellectual like yourself.

[Scallywag]

Originally posted by PacHead:
[B]This is the new translation that is coming out of Al-Qaeda websites explaining Bin Ladens latest message.

Basically, vote for Kerry, and you will be spared, you infidel.

Vote for Bush, and your state will be targeted, you infidel.

No.

Bin Laden's Audio: Threat to States? by Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan.

A re-interpretation of the speech, put in motion by the neoconservative organ, MEMRI, has been flying around the web, suggesting that Bin Laden is threatening individual American states if they vote for Bush.

At the end of his message, Bin Laden said this:

In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state [wilayah] that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.


MEMRI is claiming that the word used for "state" in this sentence means state as in Rhode Island and New Jersey.

But while they are right to draw attention to the oddness of the diction, their conclusion is impossible.

Bin Laden says that such a "state" should not trifle with Muslims' security. He cannot possibly mean that he thinks Rhode Island is in a position to do so. Nor can he be referring to which way a state votes, since he begins by saying that the security of Americans is not in the hands of Bush or Kerry. He has already dismissed them as equivalent and irrelevant, in and of themselves.

Moreover, the way he uses "wilayah" is strange if he meant a Rhode Island kind of state. He should have said "ayy wilayah min al-wilayaat," "any state among the states" or some such diction.

Since MEMRI's conclusion is impossible given what else Bin Laden says, then we must revisit their philological point. It is true that in modern standard Arabic, wilayah means "state" or "province" and that al-Wilayaat al-Muttahaddah is the phrase used to translate "United States." A state in the sense of government or international Power would more likely nowadays be "dawlah" or "hukumah."

But there are two possible explanations for Bin Laden's diction here. The first is that he regularly uses archaicisms. He has steeped himself in ancient, Koranic Arabic and the sayings of the Prophet, and he and his fellow cultists in Qandahar had developed a peculiar subculture that rejected much of modernity. The Taliban state characterized itself as an Emirate (imarah) ruled by an Amir in the sense of a caliph or Amir al-Mu'minin ("Commander of the Faithful"). In the contemporary Gulf, in contrast, an "amir" is a prince. The amir (emir) of Kuwait is not claiming to be a caliph! Bin Laden and Mulla Omar went back to the classical meaning of amir.

In classical Arabic, a ruler is a wali, who then rules over a wilayah or walayah. Wilayah can have connotations even in modern Arabic (see Hans Wehr) of sovereignty and it can mean "government." Bin Laden is attempting to revive ways of thinking he maintains were common among the first generation of Muslims, and to slough off centuries of accretions.

So the first possibility is simply that Bin Laden is using a fundamentalist archaicism. It would be like a Christian fundamentalist wedded to the King James Bible who insisted on using the word "charity" to mean a form of selfless love, with the Greek word caritas in mind, rather than in its contemporary meaning of "philanthropy."

The other possibility is that Bin Laden has lived most of the past 25 years in Persian, Pushtu and Urdu-speaking environments and that he occasionally lapses into non-standard usages. In Hindi-Urdu, I noticed that one meaning of vilayat is "the metropole." At least in past generations, people going from British India to the UK said they were going to "vilayat." More important, there is some evidence for fundamentalist Muslims using the word "wilayah" or "walayah" to mean "country." The Pakistani radical group Hizb al-Tahrir locates itself in "Walayah Pakistan", i.e., the country of Pakistan.

I think archaicism is a more likely explanation than what linguists call "interference" from other languages for Bin Laden's diction here. But I am quite sure for the reasons of logic given above that he means "government" by the word, not state as in province, in this speech.

[JHromadka]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are you suggesting that "certain Democrats" are threatening to attack the US?

No, but some Republicans will

[Isaac]

The following is a translated full transcript of Osama bin Laden's video-taped message aired on the Al-Jazeera satellite television network, as provided by the U.S. government.

The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

Praise be to Allah who created the Creation for His worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate the oppressor in kind.

To proceed, peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.

People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals with the war and its causes and results. Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we didn't strike � for example � Sweden. And we know that freedom haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19. May Allah have mercy upon them.

No we fight you because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay waste to our Nation, so shall we lay waste to yours. No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure whereas thinking people when disaster strikes make it their priority to look for its causes in order to prevent it happening again. But I am amazed at you even though we are in the 4th year after the events of Sept 11th. Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred. So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken for you to consider. I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers, but after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. The bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood, and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high-rises demolished over their residents rockets raining down on our homes without mercy the situations was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but didn't respond. In those difficult moments, many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors. And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy while resistance is terrorism and intolerance. This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children � also in Iraq � as Bush Jr. did in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages. So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs.

Should a man to be blamed for defending his sanctuary? Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us. This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed repeatedly for years before September 11th. And you can read this, if you wish in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996 or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997 or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998. You can observe it practically, if you wish in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk. The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders to freedom at the White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him so that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you? If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th.

This concerned the causes of the war. As for its results, they have been by the Grace of Allah, positive and enormous and have by all standards exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief amongst them that we haven't' found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the songs of kings and presidents. Our experience with them in lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterized by pride, arrogance, greed, and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the region at a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions to embezzle the public wealth of the Nation without supervision or accounting. So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act under the pretense of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty. All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahedin to the farthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human economic and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits to their private companies. This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers as we alongside the Mujahedin bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah is willing and nothing is too great for Allah. That being said, those who say that al-Qa'ida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that Al-Qa'ida is the sole factor in achieving these spectacular gains. Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations � whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction � has helped al-Qaida to achieve those enormous results. And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States even if the intentions differ. And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (when they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America in the incident and its aftermath lost � according to the lowest estimates � more than 500 billion dollars, meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah besides the loss of a huge number of jobs. As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record, astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahedin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan with Allah's permission. It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is... you. It's the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Atta. Allah have mercy on him that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the Command-in-Chief of the American Armed Forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone at the time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period required to execute the operations. All praise is due to Allah. And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him.

All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction � assuming they exist � is available to you and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome. But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight and he gave priority to private interests over the public interest of America. So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threatened his future. He fits the saying "Like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth". So I say to you over 15,000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10,000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all of those killed from both sides all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business. Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons also for money. And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorize the women and children and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.

Finally, it behooves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments which should be studied and researched. Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse where they say "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision". It is as if they were telling you, "The people of America hold to account those who have caused us to be killed and happy is he who learns from others mistakes". And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry:

Injustice chases its people
And how unhealthy the bed of tyranny
As has been said
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure
And know that
It is better to return to the truth than persist in error
And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth, and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.

In conclusion, I tell you in all truth that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qa'ida. No, your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security, has automatically guaranteed its own security. And Allah is our Guardian and Helper while you have no Guardian or Helper.

[edited: formating]

[icruise]

Longest. Link. EVAR.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Scallywag:
No.

Sorry, your source is irrelevent to me. The guy is pro-terrorist, and 100% irrelevent as far as I am concerned. You might as well link to an Al-Qaeda site.

And just 'cause he's a professor don't mean squat. There was this one terrorist professor arrested in Florida I remember.

[itai195]

He's pro-terrorist because he disagrees with you?

It's ironic that you say he may as well have linked to an al-Qaeda site, because the interpretation of OBL's video that you want to believe did originate from a terrorist site!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
No kidding, Osama's threat is just that, an empty, impotent threat. If he could've bombed us, he would've have. Now he is left to releasing ridiculous videotapes with stupid threats. Anybody who lets Osama influence their decision is a spineless moron.

Are you not suggesting that people vote for Bush because you think OBL wants people to vote for Kerry? Is that not letting OBL influence your vote?

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are you not suggesting that people vote for Bush because you think OBL wants people to vote for Kerry? Is that not letting OBL influence your vote?

precisely. Sometimes I don't think any critical thinking occurs when certain people post.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Scallywag:
No.

Bin Laden's Audio: Threat to States? by Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan.

Cole is in error. How else do you explain the fact that Al-Qal'a, the radical muslim website came up with the "threatening individual states" translation? How else do you explain that Egyptian journalists came up with the same translation independently?

The translation that Bin Ladin is threatening individual states seems to be true, despite what Cole believes.

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."


What's more, an Egyptian journalist seems to have come to the same conclusions about what Osama meant;

Columnist Dr. Mamoun Fandy wrote an article in the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram titled 'Bin Laden Votes for John Kerry: A Tape of Admission, Voting and Capitulation.' The following are excerpts from the article:

'Osama Bin Laden Announced his Vote for John Kerry'

"The new phenomenon in the U.S. elections is that non-Americans are voting in the elections in the hope of changing America's course. [ U.N. Secretary-General] Kofi Annan, for example, voted for [Senator] John Kerry when he criticized [President] Bush's policy in Iraq and described the invasion of Iraq as an illegal action. On the other hand, Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi voted for Bush in his recent visit to the U.S. when he thanked the U.S. and its president in [his address] to the Congress and in the White House. Recently, Osama bin Laden announced his vote for John Kerry in his latest tape, which was presented to us by the political porn channel [i.e. Al-Jazeera].

"The most important thing in the tape is his sincere admission that he is the man who had planned the September 11 attacks. He specified the motives that justified this operation, which began to ferment in his mind since Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982…

"The main point in this case is that Osama himself admitted to carrying out the operation which his friends and disciples were denying for a long time. And here we have evidence, in sound and image, that the man [i.e. bin Laden] is the primary [party] responsible for the events of September 11 and that neither the Mossad nor the CIA were behind the [events], as the low-ranking [Arab] commentators have claimed. Nor the Serbs, as the senior political commentators have claimed."

'Bin Laden Does Not Refer at All to Jihad in This Tape'

"The second point is that the tape is one of capitulation and bankruptcy, and not one of threat and warning, since bin Laden appears in regular robes and not in a military uniform with a rifle on his side. Bin Laden has relinquished his military [character] and his arms. This, of course, is intentional on the part of the public relations administration within Al-Qa'ida and outside it.

"In addition, bin Laden does not refer at all to Jihad in this tape. There was no [mention] of Hadiths or of Koranic verses, and not even a mention of the month of Ramadan, which we [mark] today. The tape is devoid of religious manifestations and is devoid of any [mention] of the conflict between East and West, or [the war of] the Mujahideen against the infidel Crusaders, whether Christians or Jews.

"Bin Laden's speech was restricted to technical issues of U.S. foreign policy and its relations with the Middle East. In addition, it was restricted to an attempt to influence the voters in every [U.S.] state, with [bin Laden] stating that [each] state is responsible for its own security by means of its vote – and bin Laden's lack of understanding of the internal situation in the U.S. is [yet another] issue, which I will not elaborate on here."

'This Tape Resembles the Announcements of Commercial Companies Which are Going Out of Business'

"The tape tells George Bush: 'Leave us alone, and we will leave you alone.' It is obvious, from both the language and the body language, that this is a speech of a man who is capitulating, withdrawing, or trying to 'change his spots' from a Jihad fighter to a politician. This tape resembles the announcements of commercial companies which are going out of business.

"Bin Laden gave justifications for the events of September 11, and admitted responsibility for them, and here he is announcing that he votes for John Kerry in the elections. His speech contained expressions borrowed from the Democratic Convention or from Kerry's speeches, such as the story of George Bush telling a girl in Florida a tale about a goat. This expression appeared frequently in John Kerry's speeches, and it is obvious that whoever wrote bin Laden's speeches has democratic leanings, or at the very least that he follows John Kerry's speeches with interest. Moreover, bin Laden appeared in the tape as if he were advisor to Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, for he provided hints, free-of-charge, about the way to [better] preserve U.S. security.

"The outcome of the election we will know today or tomorrow, but the tape will remain a tape of admission, voting, and capitulation."

-- Al-Ahram (Egypt), November 2, 2004.

Bio of Dr. Mamoun Fandy

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Cole is in error. How else do you explain the fact that Al-Qal'a, the radical muslim website came up with the "threatening individual states" translation? How else do you explain that Egyptian journalists came up with the same translation independently?

Does Al-Qal'a speak for Al Qaeda? Or, are you assuming that all radical "muslims" share exactly the same opinions?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Does Al-Qal'a speak for Al Qaeda? Or, are you assuming that all radical "muslims" share exactly the same opinions?

Well, all fundamental Christians think like the Amish, right?

[icruise]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Cole is in error. How else do you explain the fact that Al-Qal'a, the radical muslim website came up with the "threatening individual states" translation? How else do you explain that Egyptian journalists came up with the same translation independently?

Believe what you like. I've made my case, and I think any reasonable person would agree that interpreting bin Laden's speech as pro-Kerry is seriously misguided.

[vmarks]

Let's see:

One: the coincidence of word choice survives translation.

Two: Al-Qal'a, a radical fundamentalist Muslim site translates Bin Ladin to mean he's threatening individual states.

Three: Independently, Dr. Mamoun Fandy, translates Bin Ladin the same way, to mean he's threatening individual states.

Cole says the words don't mean that, yet people with more experience and closer to understanding the ideology of Bin Ladin interpret him to be threatening the individual states.

But don't take my word for it, read Al-Qal'a yourself: https://www.qal3ati.com/vb/showthread.php?t=115812 is the thread where they explain Bin Ladin as threatening the individual states.

[icruise]

As i said before, even if you accept the "individual states" idea, it DOESN'T MATTER. It doesn't mean that he is threatening states that vote for Bush. The idea is completely from an independent internet forum. Understand?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Icruise:
As i said before, even if you accept the "individual states" idea, it DOESN'T MATTER. It doesn't mean that he is threatening states that vote for Bush. The idea is completely from an independent internet forum. Understand?

And from Dr. Fandy, who also ought to be able to understand Bin Ladin correctly. It does matter, and that's the translation they give. They arrived at it separately. I understand, and I do not accept your interpretation.

[icruise]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And from Dr. Fandy, who also ought to be able to understand Bin Ladin correctly. It does matter, and that's the translation they give. They arrived at it separately. I understand, and I do not accept your interpretation.

He interprets bin Laden's criticism of Bush as being pro-Kerry. But in the section you quoted, he does not mention in the "states" issue, nor does he talk about bin Laden threatening states who vote for Bush. Did you just forget to include that part?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Icruise:
He interprets bin Laden's criticism of Bush as being pro-Kerry. But in the section you quoted, he does not mention in the "states" issue, nor does he talk about bin Laden threatening states who vote for Bush. Did you just forget to include that part?

Yes, and now I have to find the article at al-ahram again. They use a lousy search input tool as well.

[warmspit]

why is it so important to make the claim that bin ladin's word choices are similar to democratic criticisms? Vmarks has spent a dozen posts attempting to make that assertion.

why is it important unless he's equating democrats with terrorists? is that an appropriate action to take for a moderator of this forum? Why should anything else he said be of any value whatsoever after that: he's accusing one half of the members here of being terrorists by association.

He should hang his head in absolute shame for his reprehensible assertion here.

[vmarks]

I never accused or insinuated that half the population was to be compared with terrorists, never. The assertion was that it might give people reason to reflect on their positions when a murderer adopts their positions as his own. More is the shame that it hasn't.

[Isaac]

you can draw parallels between any two people you want... and democrats share views with a murder?... what a coincidence, so do republicans... somehow, the theature of war is some sort of bizarr justification for killing absolutly un-involved party's and people in an extreamly hap-hazard fashion.... this is something I don't understand, and maybe I never will, but there's no way in hell that Bush, or Kerry for that matter, is any better then BinLaden... and I must say, that some of you really do take the bait, whenever the US, or just about any other nation for that matter, marches off to war or genocide they preach the rhetric of fear and hate and try de-humanizing your awful evil "enemy"... the nazi's did and do it to the jews, the Klan does it to blacks, the turks did it to armeinians, the US did it to the indians, then the japs and now the muslims... sure, you don't hate all muslims, just the "extreamist" ones, but it still serves the purpose of closing dialoge and closing minds, and that's what counts cause that's what keeps you scared and hatefilled.

and it strikes me as odd, that some people here can't support there interpetation of BinLadens speech with quotes from BinLadens speech, but instread must rely on quotes of other peopls interpetations of his speech.

anyways, thank you for reading my little rant, now I must go to bed before my dad spazs out. goodnight.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I never accused or insinuated that half the population was to be compared with terrorists, never. The assertion was that it might give people reason to reflect on their positions when a murderer adopts their positions as his own. More is the shame that it hasn't.

bullsh!t. I HAVE reflected on your insinuation, and my parable was the result of my reflection: to wit: Simply because two sources of different moral outlook look at the same empirical data and come to the same conclusion does NOT make their moral outlook congruent, something you keep wishing to insinuate, though you deny it, that is exactly what you are doing.

I reject wholeheartedly that reprehensible accusation. If I observe that Bush has lied to the american people, and OBL makes the same observation, that does NOT make me a terrorist, NOR does it invalidate the observation.

it is you that refuse to reflect on your OWN position.

[Scallywag]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Cole is in error. How else do you explain the fact that Al-Qal'a, the radical muslim website came up with the "threatening individual states" translation? How else do you explain that Egyptian journalists came up with the same translation independently?

The translation that Bin Ladeen is threatening individual states seems to be true, despite what Cole believes.

Interesting. What I still don't understand is why Bin Laden would threaten individual states? That's just stupid. The US is is nearly 50/50 Democrat/Republican and many states may only prefer Bush by 1%. But more importantly, Kerry is unlikely to be "friendly" to Bin Laden. From Bin Laden's point of view, there is almost zero difference between Bush and Kerry. So targeting individual states based on how they vote makes no sense because it's irrelevant.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by warmspit:
its old. get over it. What it SHOULD tell you is that bush cannot keep us safe...

I don't know about that. If all Osama bin Laden can do anymore is bluster and brag around without making any attacks (and his marked increase in this would seem to indicate that he is, in fact, reduced to it) then I'd say we're a lot safer. I'm almost inclined to let the old bastard scream his lungs out if that's all he can do; let the despair as everything he ever worked for crumbles around him be his punishment.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't know about that. If all Osama bin Laden can do anymore is bluster and brag around without making any attacks (and his marked increase in this would seem to indicate that he is, in fact, reduced to it) then I'd say we're a lot safer. I'm almost inclined to let the old bastard scream his lungs out if that's all he can do; let the despair as everything he ever worked for crumbles around him be his punishment.

lame.

so...we HAVE captured the WRONG guy..you know, saddam? but we can't capture the RIGHT guy, you know, bin ladin...and you are ok with that and it makes you feel safer?

you are the biggest fool I have ever witnessed, then.