babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Bin Laden supports Iraq in new statement: Powell

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bin Laden supports Iraq in new statement: Powell
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 11 February 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Al-Jazeera TV station set to air Al-Qaeda leader's statement today.

Assuming the statement is authentic, it underlines the common ground between Al Qaeda and the Bush administration: both of them really want an Iraq war, each for their own reasons.

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 11 February 2003 01:25 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq."

Finally! Absolute proof that Bin Laden and Hussein are in cahoots.

And those messages where he exhorts Saudis to rise up and throw the infidels out of the holy land? Proof that he is in cahoots with the house of Saud. And those messages where he urges the entire Islamic world to jihad? Proof that he is in cahoots with Mubarek and Arafat and Qaddafi and the Emir of Kuwait and Megawati and any other Islamic country's leader you care to smear by association.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2003 02:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ronb, I like your method -- don't get me wrong: I like your method.

But working in the same free-associational mode, I determined that this proves that bin-Laden and Powell are in cahoots!

I'm puzzled.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 11 February 2003 02:58 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My original take on it was this: If bin Laden really made the statement, about the [Iraqi] struggle, and how he is in partnership with Iraq (Powell's paraphrase), then I imagine he would have fully known the reaction it would provoke, and that it would be used to justify war on Iraq. Perhaps nothing would please bin Laden more than a U.S. attack on Iraq: it might be his best chance to provoke the Islamic world into a wider conflict with the U.S.

However, he may never have made the statement. When I posted the link, the story was subtitled "Al-Jazeera TV station set to air Al-Qaeda leader's statement today". Now this has been changed to "Arab TV station denies having tape from Al Qaeda leader".

So this might be nothing more than another pathetic Powell ploy to link al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.


I notice that the CNN version has the headline Powell: Bin Laden claims 'partnership with Iraq' and the bold first paragraph: A message has surfaced believed to be Osama bin Laden claiming a "partnership with Iraq," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday..

But if you read the story, it also says

quote:
Asked for reaction, Al-Jazeera denied that it had such a bin Laden message and said that it was a rumor that has been circulating for several weeks.

But Powell seemed to be taking the message seriously, telling lawmakers they would be hearing it "during the course of the day" on Al-Jazeera.


[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 11 February 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now the story has changed again: Al-Jazeera to broadcast bin Laden message:
quote:
After initially denying its existence, the Qatar-based Arab satellite news network Al-Jazeera broadcasting said it would air an audio message Tuesday from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, calling on Muslims to "unite in defending the Iraqi people."
They'd better hurry, since it's almost Wednesday in Quatar. It's kind of strange that Powell seemed to know that Al-Jazeera had the tape before even Al-Jazeera knew. Probably just a mix-up.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 11 February 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't it obvious. The U.S. faked the tape, then enlisted Al-Jazeera to broadcast it for them. They're in cahoots. Bin-Laden is supporting the Americans' efforts to get world support for the war on Iraq, due to his hatred for Iraq, who is either refusing to supply him with WMD (or is supplying him with WMD). Then he'll go in when the U.S. leaves, and take over the country so he can have a base to develop WMD to attack the U.S. and other Arab countries. Or whatever other parnoid-delusional scenario we can think up.

Come on guys. Can we at least wait until the tape surfaces before we go into full Conspiracy Nut mode?


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Judging from your post, mandrake, apparently not.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 11 February 2003 05:17 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd have to say that it's Colin Powell who deserves the Tinfoil Hat of the Month award.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 February 2003 05:23 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just listened to a summary of the tape on CBC radio, and then Colin Powell's response. Even though the tape refers only to the need for "the people of Iraq" and "the believers of Iraq" to struggle against "warmongers", Powell nonetheless
claimed that "it shows the connection" between the Iraqi state and Al Quaeda.

Pretty threadbare.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 11 February 2003 05:26 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More than threadbare, I'd say. At this point who's going to take anything bin Laden says at face value anyway? He's supposed to be the most wanted man in the world. What's he got to lose by lying to stir things up more?

Edited because a question really should end with a question mark. It really should.

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 11 February 2003 07:10 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Real or not, there is an element of self-fulfilling prophesy in it, with both sides calling the other evil.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
mandrake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3127

posted 11 February 2003 07:14 PM      Profile for mandrake     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
. At this point who's going to take anything bin Laden says at face value anyway? He's supposed to be the most wanted man in the world. What's he got to lose by lying to stir things up more?

Of course not. No connection there. Nothing, nada! Just a statement of support. No interest in obtaining WMD from Saddam to use against their mutual enemy. Repeat after me: no proof, no proof, no proof!

And let's make sure we follow the same path that Neville Chamberlain followed with Hitler; "Peace in our time!". Let's take Saddam at his word that he has no WMD and no intention of using them or giving them to his new best pal, bin Laden. Have faith, believe, and you'll wind up with a bomb up your ass!


From: erehwon | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 11 February 2003 07:17 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see one major difference between bin Laden and Saddam. bin Laden wants the US to invade because it'll kick off the biggest recruiting drive that AQ has ever seen.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 February 2003 07:59 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really hate to sound like the Honourable Member from Microsoft, but William Saletan of Slate, who's hawkish, pointed out what a cynical reversal was Powell's ploy:

quote:
If you want to know why people don't trust what the United States says about Iraq, get a load of what Secretary of State Colin Powell said this morning.

On Oct. 7, 2001, Arab TV superstation Al Jazeera aired a video in which Osama Bin Laden suggested that he was fighting for Iraq and Palestine. "One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong," Bin Laden protested. "Israeli tanks and tracked vehicles also enter to wreak havoc in Palestine … and we hear no voices raised."

When Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later that month, he dismissed Bin Laden's claims. "We cannot let Usama bin Laden pretend that he is doing it in the name of helping the Iraqi people or the Palestinian people," said Powell. "He doesn't care one whit about them. He has never given a dollar toward them. He has never spoken out for them."


That was then; this is now. Tuesday morning, Powell testified before the Senate Budget Committee. He warned that Al Jazeera would soon air a new Bin Laden statement in which "once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq. This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored."

You can write the next paragraph yourself. Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result.

The punch line? Bin Laden was talking about hypocrisy.



From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 11 February 2003 09:55 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post

Clear undisputable evidence from excite.com that Bin Laden and Iraq are bedfellows! What a stroke of luck for the US to find such a valuable tape of undeniable proof at the 11th hour!

Truly God is working through Bush...

I almost stopped to read the actual story, but the headline and image was proof enough for this savvy media reader...


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 11 February 2003 10:15 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
The airing of another apparent bin Laden tape will remind Americans that there is much unfinished business in the 'war against terror.' Remember Bush's boastful statement during the Afghan war that they were going to capture bin Laden 'dead or alive'?

Now that Bush's gun sights are trained on Iraq, it suddenly serves his interests to have bin Laden very much alive, on the loose, and posing a threat. Ironic, isn't it?


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 11 February 2003 11:26 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Ignorant infidel," bin Laden called him.

See, it just means the world's most wanted is in league with Iraq!

Sure… until you realize the "ignorant infidel" is Saddam Hussien.

Anyway, I thought the MO of a bin Laden public service announcement was a video. Post Sept 11, it's all audio. Now I'm not suggesting, as per the mythic leftist hordes that inhabit babble, that the tape was faked by the US. I am saying that it doesn't seem all that far-fetched to consider that al-Qaeda has a vested interest in keeping bin Laden alive. In PR terms, he's got great face recognition. His brand is known.

Did he lose an eye in Afghanistan?

The CBC commented that the timing was odd. As sure, it does seem odd. Does al-Qaeda think a new fundemtalist regime will rise out of the ashes of Iraq?

I almost wonder if this bin Laden tape has all the significance of Pat Buchanan commenting on Canadian politics... a crippled terrorist network making a large gambit in the hopes of scoring some brownie points (or little Muslim sisters points?)


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 12 February 2003 12:54 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The CBC commented that the timing was odd. As sure, it does seem odd. Does al-Qaeda think a new fundemtalist regime will rise out of the ashes of Iraq?

Of course. War has always been good for bin Laden.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 February 2003 01:04 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Authentic or not, the timing of this tape is incredibly coincidental*

bin Laden has truly become the US's Emmanuel Goldstein. Never captured, always alive. Always a threat, yet never extinguished.

The only thing we're missing is John Ashcroft's minions setting up fake Al Qaeda cells to entrap Americans.

-----

* The sad part is most people won't stop to ask who bin Laden was slagging when he called someone an infidel.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jean chretien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2693

posted 12 February 2003 09:45 AM      Profile for jean chretien     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey guys I have a question for you all..

Last night watching the news.. I heard that the voice on the tape was in support of the Iraqi people, but that Saddam is a irresponsible infidel.. or something along these lines..

Today I read the headline in the OTtawa citizen paper and I get a different story..

That Ossama is in partnership with the Iraqi regieme and that Bin Laden backs his Iraqi Partners.. as in they are all in this togather!

Now this is either very irresponsible reporting or the national was full of shit! I wonder which it was!


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 February 2003 10:01 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"ignorant infidel" -- now, that's better than "moron," you gotta admit.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ben_al
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3427

posted 12 February 2003 10:46 AM      Profile for ben_al     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that there are too many things that Binny would like to see more than a war between the great satan and an ignorant infidel. No matter who "wins", He has one less enemy to deal with.
From: Kitchener, ON | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 13 February 2003 11:50 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Text of bin Laden's message

Apparently translations differ. Originally I heard that the infidel was ignorant, much like this article.

But, anyway, apparently the quote "ignorant infidel" is false. It should be that the "infidel" is "ignorant".


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 14 February 2003 12:22 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bin laden and Hussein working together? That's nuts. They're completely ideologically opposed. That would be like Bush or Reagan working with Saddam.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 March 2003 02:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On Intelligence Failures re: Sept 11th
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 11 March 2003 07:56 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I read between the lines of some of these threads, do I see some who are for Bin Laden and Hussein? Tell me i'm wrong.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 March 2003 08:00 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're wrong, bellows. Drastically wrong. Also, you're baiting.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 11 March 2003 08:15 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be fair, lance, we can't be entirely sure what bellows sees when he reads between the lines. All I see is white space, but perhaps he has some power of perception that you and I have been denied.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 March 2003 08:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
... you're absolutely right, Slim. We can't know what he sees, nor can we know what he understands even by the words that you and I see.

A thorny philosophical problem. Oh, Michellllllle...


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2003 08:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Five cents please.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 11 March 2003 09:01 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 13 March 2003 10:22 AM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what I was trying to say was,( you are either for the USA or you are against them)
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 13 March 2003 10:28 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But you were kidding, yes?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca