TA-ANALYSIS: Al Qaeda Expert Shocked by Latest bin Laden Tape

know this is said partially tongue in cheeck, but maybe it's not such a bad idea. Why can't a foreign policy that basically says, "you mind your own business, and we'll mind our own" work?

We tried it before...called "Isolationism", during WWII. By the time we finally got involved full force, Hitler had run over most of Europe... History regards the US Isolation policy as one of the major blunders of WWII...

TigeriS, I'm uncertain as to why this thread ended with your last reply, I found it to be right on. Were so stupid sometimes that we can't see the obvious.. Why do we pick up a club to settle our differences? Why destroy what we wish to preserve?? Our method is A** Backwards... Draw a line in the the sand, and Back-off. Take care of what is ours, as well as what is theirs by the agreement not to kill to make a point, where is this simply easy concept? In our way of thinking now, does no justice in our ability as Humans to severe a Sad Resolve that we have choosen... we continue to choose incorrectly.

I never said I backed the war nor did I say I agree with the militaristic approach our gov't takes.

Isolationism in WWII was a blunder. There was a madman storming thru europe taking over country after country and exterminating a race. In this case we would be isolating ourselves from a situation that is very different. For starters, most of the world seems to think we should mind our own business. Also, you're not dealing with a gov't that is doing this (Saudi Royals are bit we won't do a thing about it so long as they have all that oil). You're dealing with a religion that is widespread and really can't be fought via conventional methods. Isolating ourselves would give the terrorists a real problem. IF we don't do a thing what will be their reason for launching terror attacks? Once they attack again (which they will) we can then say to the world -"hey, we did the switzerland thing and they still attacked us so please stand aside while we turn the entire region to glass"

I personally think a giant fence should be erected around the whole region. A nice big pipe will be put in place to ensure te flow of oil. Let them fight it out and tell them that, so long as the oil is flowing, someone will get paid for it. Who gets paid is up to you guys. Share the money or kill eachother for the rights but god help you all if the oil flow stops.

Originally posted by Crakeur
The author didn't say he was advocating a muslim holocaust.

If there is a misunderstanding then it results from your presentation

the p[assage in question:
the author reluctantly admitted was the only real way to deal with them was to wipe them off the face of the earth

as for the muslim extremists being people, just like me, I will simply say no they are not. people like me don't blow up innocents because they have a different set of beliefs.

Not all muslims do this, and not all nonmuslims don't.

people like me don't think that everyone who does't live like I live should be dead.

I know a few muslims and I have never heard them even suggest anything like this. Your classification of all muslims as such is ignorant and bigoted.

people like me don't actually believe that a religion would condone murder.

SO you are not a christian or jew then? Perhaps you are a buddhist or zoroasterian? I am unfamiliar with the zoroasterian position on this. Are are you a follower of shinto or something?

Islam is not, fundamentally, any more violent that christianity or judaism. Infact, the judeo-christian-muslim complex of religions could be said to be the violent war mongering child murdering religion.

Bin laden is using this 'holy war' to assist in his own personal agenda, a hatred for the US that leads back to US/Palestinian relations on the 80's I think. He could give 2 #s what the clerics think, but if they are with him, then it is easier to for the US and the world to blame all Muslims and/or Arab looking folk. I feel that is why he would wait. He wants a world war to cripple the US, and we are entering that period with Iraq and Afghanistan.


We are in the ending the first year of what will be WW3 in the history books years from now. I only hope that we as a country can survive and persevere after the attack that is coming...

Bin Laden needs to gain the consent of the muslim world. He needs their support to increase his ranks, and gain acceptance for a large attack on a probable civilian target. Granted the US action in the middle east currently is doing alot of that for him.

Whether or not he cares what the mullahs and imams think, he knows that their blessing on any upcoming action will go a long way towards gaining popular support among the arab populace.

The outward appearance of the recent statements by bin Laden and Zawahri give the "effect" of consent, and possibly laying the groundwork for an action to come.

nygdan, when I say muslim extremist I mean the muslim extremist or islamic fundamentalist. I think you must be skipping over words when you read. please don't call me ignorant if you can't even see that I am continually differentiating between muslims and fanatical extremists. If the concept is hard for you to grasp, I can call them two entirely different names. Shall I go back and change each post so that they are referred to as islamists (islamic + fundamentalists)?

the author of that article stated the only way to stop the terror and went on to say that you can't systematically kill off a religion. The article basically said that we are just going to have to live with the fact that there is a group of people out there that want to kill us.


give me some examples of when jews went on a crusade and started killing non-believers. how about an example of jews attempting to get converts. Jews don't actively seek out new members.

I have already examined Mike Scheuer and commented on his credibility elsewhere. To recap, I don't recommend giving the guy too much credence as he's essentially trying to sell books and publicly doctor his questionable legacy.

In this case, however, I think he may be on to something. Bin Laden has his own groupies in the community of Muslim clerics. They aren't who he is trying to woo, they're already in his pocket and will issue whatever fatwas he requires from them.

His latest push seems to be to rally support from more mainstream sources. Al Qaeda's strategy has always been to polarize Muslims and non-Muslims, with the goal of uniting the faithful against the infidel aggressors. The most expedient way to do this has been to provoke western nations into pursuing a more interventionist policy in the Middle East.

So far, the strategy is working, but enthusiasm on the part of Muslim nations for all-out warfare with western nations has not been strong. Al Qaeda does seem to be trying to broaden its appeal among Muslims and make its case to them.

One of the reasons for doing this has to do with money. Although Al Qaeda has been well-funded and handles its finances extraordinarily well, support has dried up due to law enforcement actions and a desire on the part of less fanatical Muslims to distance themselves from what they see as the tarnish of terrorism.

My sense of what is going on here is a public relations campaign to rally support from Muslim moderates prior to launching a major attack.

While several attacks have already been thwarted, we don't tend to see much press about them, because "Meteor Does Not Hit Earth" doesn't sell newspapers.

Terrorism only makes headlines when an attack succeeds. Al Qaeda knows this, and knows it must show a pattern of continued success if it is to maintain credibility as an organization.

Sooner or later, they will succeed in attacking the United States again. They will also attack other targets, including key locations in European countries. When an attack succeeds, the leaders of Al Qaeda will want to be ready to cash in on the fresh influx of support that will be offered to them.

If they play their cards right, they may succeed in fomenting the religious war they seek. Preventing that in the wake of an attack that kills tens of thousands of people may be impossible once the threshold is crossed and the fight gets dirtier.

Al Qaeda is counting on this.


[edit on 12/23/2004 by Majic]

Originally posted by Majic
While several attacks have already been thwarted, we don't tend to see much press about them, because "Meteor Does Not Hit Earth" doesn't sell newspapers.

No but it does make the internet news circuits.
SCI/TECH: Small Asteroid Passes Between Satellites and Earth

actually that huge asteroid that was close to us made the papers here.

bad choice of metaphor hehe.

Okay, okay, I get it. You're right, it was a poor example. Hmm, how about this, then:

United States Not Attacked By Terrorists Today

Yes, that oughtta do it.

Anyway, the point still stands: Good News Is No News.

Originally posted by Majic
Okay, okay, I get it. You're right, it was a poor example. Hmm, how about this, then:

United States Not Attacked By Terrorists Today

Yes, that oughtta do it.

Anyway, the point still stands: Good News Is No News.

I agree with you, and I also agree with your example. I just thought it was funny because I posted the story here of "asteroid misses earth" and it got very little response.

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
I just thought it was funny because I posted the story here of "asteroid misses earth" and it got very little response.

You can cut the irony with a knife.

Despite the serious topic, it is fun to fence over metaphors now and then. Even in dark times, a little humor goes a long way.

I'm sorry to predict we're going to need a lot of it in the times soon to come.

Originally posted by Majic
You can cut the irony with a knife.

Despite the serious topic, it is fun to fence over metaphors now and then. Even in dark times, a little humor goes a long way.

I'm sorry to predict we're going to need a lot of it in the times soon to come.

Yes, I was actually verifying your metaphor with a real life example.
I don't believe you are too far off with your prediction. I have seen a few indications just recently that once again the possibility exists that they mean to hit us around the holidays. Not much evidence to support it, but an overseas hit may be a possibility.

Majic. I think you nailed it, the story is still to unfold. To avoid any outcome of their intent, we fail to see this.

Originally posted by Crakeur
nygdan, when I say muslim extremist I mean the muslim extremist or islamic fundamentalist. I think you must be skipping over words when you read.

I beleive I might have, perhaps I am being overly ready to expect that people are viscious hatemongers. I re-read the posts and see that you do usually make not that its islamic extremists, which I shouldn't assume to meant 'all muslims are extremists". I apoligize.

the author of that article stated the only way to stop the terror and went on to say that you can't systematically kill off a religion.

This is where you are confusing me. Why state that a religion can't be destroyed, when its not a religion that is the problem? Its the extemists in the religion no?

give me some examples of when jews went on a crusade and started killing non-believers.

They've wiped out, at least according the their own holy books, entire tribes of non-beleivers, heck their god even stopped the sun in its course to give them more daylight hours to better eradicate one tribe.

how about an example of jews attempting to get converts. Jews don't actively seek out new members.

The women and children carried away in slave raids probably would've converted to judaism, at least over the generations that they were held as slaves.

It seems the experts have different opinions. While Michael Scheuer thinks that the recent tapes from Osama bin Laden may signal an imminent attack, John Pike from GlobalSecurity.org believes that Al Qaeda is incapable of launching any kind of large scale operation.

Global Security
WASHINGTON - Recent tapes from Al Qaeda's top kingpins could mean that a spectacular strike against the U.S. is imminent, a former CIA counterterrorism official warns.

Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden unit and author of "Imperial Hubris," a book arguing that the West is losing the war on terrorism, said he is alarmed by recent statements by Bin Laden and his deputy, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

"I think what [Bin Laden] has done is clearly set the stage for a large attack," Scheuer told Time magazine.

But other terror experts disputed that tapes always precede attacks. "There's simply not enough consistent data at this point to be able to draw that conclusion," defense analyst John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org told the Daily News yesterday.

Pike said there is much evidence that Al Qaeda has been disrupted to the point where it may be incapable of mounting a spectacular attack in the U.S.

"They seem to have substituted words for action," Pike said. "But nobody wants to prematurely declare victory, because the evildoers retain the capacity to prove you wrong."

So it seems there may be an expert to support everyone's opinion.
I don't know.
Tie this together with the lack of chatter recently, and I just don't know. It may support Pike's assertion, or it may be as some have said in the past that when the chatter stops it means they have gone operational.

phreak_of_nature said "Tie this together with the lack of chatter recently, and I just don't know. It may support Pike's assertion, or it may be as some have said in the past that when the chatter stops it means they have gone operational."

The post is rather long..... I don't think (hope) this knows what he is talking about but then you never know......

godlikeproductions.com.../20/04