Jag är inget big fan av russin. Visst, kalla och hårda i starkvinsglöggen är de helt okej men så fort de ligger varma och uppsvällda i en lussebulle får jag seriöst kväljningar när jag råkar sätta tänderna i ett. Jag skulle nog faktiskt vilja påstå att ett lusserussin är lite som al-Qaida-ledaren Usama Bin Laden. För utöver de rent uppenbara, utseendemässiga, likheterna så är de båda också löjligt duktiga på att gömma sig. Det spelar ingen roll hur noga USA och jag genomsöker gångarna och sliter sönder väggarna – de där skrynkliga små terroristerna lyckas ändå alltid på något sätt hålla sig undan. Och jag är dessutom ganska så säker på att jag skulle få kväljningar om jag råkade få Usama i munnen också. Tänk er själva de grova, krulliga skäggstråna som kittlar sig ner längst gommen och sedan ligger och skaver i svalget. Fyfan.

Ahlul-athar.net expresses their utter disgust at any acts of extremism and terrorism committed by the Khawaarij and the likes, those that of Al-Qaedah and their ilk. Such unjustified outbursts of wanton violence are against Islam and Islam does not ever justify kidnappings, suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism . It is rather disheartening that some of the Maldvian youth are getting deluded into believing that these acts are Jihaad and from Islaam.We call the youth to return back to the original state of affairs, and to know that knowledge precedes action, and it is not the other way around!

We call those who are known as “Dots” and their ilk to not be beguiled by the beautified speech of simpeltons who have no knowledge of this beautiful Deen, and who are misguided and far astray from the Creed of the righeous salaf. And the recent video footage of the pseudo “Mujaahid” Ali Jaleel, then we say he has lot to learn of this beautiful Deen. It is not for him to call the scholars to go to him, but it is for him and his likes to go to the scholars themselves! It is a shame that this man does not know the great priniciple of Islaam, that knowledge precedes statements and actions!

And in this regard we also call the so called Liberalists and Modernists to not judge Islaam with the acts of the Khawaarij! Rather it is upon you too to return back to the original of affairs! And we say, do not accuse us of your own iniquities!

We, the Ahlus-Sunnah, the Salafis, the Ahlul-Athar, are free from the extremist and terrorist acts of America, the Jewish State and also those of Al-Qaeda and their ilk! We are clear from them and they are clear from us!

We also refer readers to the following websites, which has the writings of our scholars and our students of knowledge who clearly and totally refutes vigilante behaviour enacted by individuals and also who unequivocally denounce extremism, terrorism and violence:

Click here for  –> The Salafee Position on Terrorism, Suicide Bombings and Hijackings

Click here for  –> The Correct Islamic Position on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings

Click here for  –> The Wahhabi Myth – Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the Fictitious Link with Bin Laden

Click here for  –> Sacred Freedom: Western Liberalist Ideologies In The Light Of Islam
Useful Website in English  –> http://www.islamAgainstExtremism.com

Useful Website in English  –> http://www.Answering-Extremism.com

Barack Hussein Obama har förärats Nobels fredspris för… ja, vad?

Det kan man verkligen fråga sig. (Vilket även Aftonbladet gör: “Så jävla dumt” ) Han har utlovat både det ena och det andra och det tredje. Världsfred, förändring i arbetet mot klimatförändringarna och en fet sjukvårdsreform. Hittills går det väl sådär. Hur tänkte de egentligen, norrmännen? Om de bums vill ge priset till samtida världsledare så har jag förslag på två andra prominenta herrar:

Silvio Berlusconi och George W. Bush! De om några har bidragit till att skapa en fredligare värld. Bush behöver knappast någon närmare presentation, för det är sannerligen inte alla som lyckats störta två muslimska terroristregimer. Självklart tar demokratiseringsprocessen tid, och där har Obama tagit vid och definitivt ännu inte gett lika stora avtryck som Bushregimen gjort i och med Usama bin Laden och Saddam Husseins fall. Berlusconi har bland annat rehabiliterat den gamla mellankrigskolonin Libyen och varit med att störta talibanerna i “kriget mot terrorismen”.
Mycken kritik riktas, och har riktats, mot dessa herrar; trots detta har båda blivit omvalda, Berlusconi är t. ex. premiärminister för tredje gången just nu!

Men visst, vill nobelpriskommittén fortsätta lalla på med populistiska utnämningar som Al Gore och Barack Hussein Obama så är det väl deras sak. De bidrar knappast till någon “change” med den nu inslagna vägen…

Bin Laden Calls Obama ‘Powerless’ in New Tape

Sunday, September 13, 2009

WASHINGTON —  In a tape released Sunday by Al Qaeda’s media wing, terrorist leader Usama bin Laden said President Barack Obama is “powerless” to stop the war in Afghanistan.

SITE Intelligence Group, a terrorist-monitoring firm that translated the address, said bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda organization was behind the Sept. 11 attacks, blamed the war on the “pro-Israel lobby” and corporate interests.

IntelCenter, another company that monitors terrorist propaganda, said the 11-minute video shows a still picture of bin Laden while audio of the address plays.

via Bin Laden Calls Obama ‘Powerless’ in New Tape – International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News – FOXNews.com.

On October 3, 2001, Usama bin Laden sent this to Mullah Omar (head of the Taliban):

Highly esteemed Leader of the Faithful,
Mullah Muhammad Omar, Mujahid,
May God preserve him …

1- We treasure your message, which confirms your generous, heroic position in defending Islam and in standing up to the symbols of infidelity of this time.

2- I would like to emphasize the major impact of your statements on the Islamic world. Nothing harms America more than receiving your strong response to its positions and statements. Thus it is very important that the Emirate respond to every threat or demand from America … with demands that America put an end to its support of Israel, and that U.S. forces withdraw from Saudi Arabia. Such responses nullify the effect of the American media on people’s morale.

Newspapers mentioned that a recent survey showed that seven out of every ten Americans suffer psychological problems following the attacks on New York and Washington.

Although you have already made strong declarations, we ask you to increase them to equal the opponent’s media campaign in quantity and force.

Their threat to invade Afghanistan should be countered by a threat on your part that America will not be able to dream of security until Muslims experience it as reality in Palestine and Afghanistan.

3- Keep in mind that America is currently facing two contradictory problems:

a) If it refrains from responding to jihad operations, its prestige will collapse, thus forcing it to withdraw its troops abroad and restrict itself to U.S. internal affairs. This will transform it from a major power to a third-rate power, similar to Russia.

b) On the other hand, a campaign against Afghanistan will impose great long-term economic burdens, leading to further economic collapse, which will force America, God willing, to resort to the former Soviet Union’s only option: withdrawal from Afghanistan, disintegration, and contraction.

Thus our plan in the face of this campaign should focus on the following:

—Serving a blow to the American economy, which will lead to:

a) Further weakening of the American economy

b) Shaking the confidence in the American economy. This will lead investors to refrain from investing in America or participating in American companies, thus accelerating the fall of the American economy …

—Conduct a media campaign to fight the enemy’s publicity. The campaign should focus on the following important points:

a) Attempt to cause a rift between the American people and their government, by demonstrating the following to the Americans:

—That the U.S. government will lead them into further losses of money and lives.

—That the government is sacrificing the people to serve the interests of the rich, particularly the Jews.

—That the government is leading them to the war front to protect Israel and its security.

—America should withdraw from the current battle between Muslims and Jews.

This plan aims to create pressure from the American people on their government to stop its campaign against Afghanistan, on the grounds that the campaign will cause major losses to the American people.

—Imply that the campaign against Afghanistan will be responded to with revenge blows against America.

I believe that we can issue, with your permission, a number of speeches that we expect will have the greatest impact, God willing, on the American, Pakistani, Arab, and Muslim people.

Finally, I would like to emphasize how much we appreciate the fact that you are our Emir. I would like to express our great appreciation of your historical stands in the service of Islam and in the defense of the Prophet’s tradition. We ask God to accept and reward such stands.

We ask God to grant the Muslim Afghani nation, under your leadership, victory over the American infidels, just as He singled this nation out with the honor of defeating the Communist infidels.

We ask God to lead you to the good of both this life and the afterlife.

Peace upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

Your brother,
Osama Bin Muhammad Bin Laden

For a slight second, the “campaign” sounded like the typical babble of anti-war fanatics. Just saying…

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usama: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin [true Muslim] people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon. I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies [of Muslims]. The US has no friends, nor it wants to keep one because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia. Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US Government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him. Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taliban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of $40 billion. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.

- September 28, 2001

A previous article on this site quoted sections of Ahmed Rashid’s TALIBAN: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), a partial copy of which is available here. The following is a  review by M. Jamil Hanifi published in The Middle East Journal, with details of the history of the emergence of the Taliban, and the early support they received from the U.S.

Source: Middle East Journal, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Spring, 2002), pp. 329-332

Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan, by Michael Griffin. London: Pluto Press, 2001. xxi + 257 pages. Notes to p. 277. Index to p. 283. Map. Chron. $27.50.

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. xi + 216 pages. Appends. to p. 247. Notes to p. 265. Index to 279. $27.50.

Reviewed by M. Jamil Hanifi

The Taliban movement is intimately grounded in the Cold War, the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the decision of the United States to embarrass and dishonor its Cold War adversary and, when that was accomplished, to depart the region leaving behind a collapsed state structure in Afghanistan and a paranoid government in a destabilized Pakistan. After the Soviet army left Afghanistan in winter 1989, the United States government abandoned the country and the tens of thousands of Afghans and non-Afghans (mostly Arabs recruited by Usama Bin Ladin, a CIA conduit) whom it had recruited, trained, and armed for the so-called “jihad” against the infidel Russians. In April 1992, when these US-sponsored gangs entered Kabul, the state structure of Afghanistan collapsed, causing the disappearance of its weakened national market and the fragile center-periphery relationship.

The Taliban movement emerged in 1994 in Southwest Afghanistan in the context of a bloody civil war, devastation, lawlessness, and warlordism, conditions that made wide-spread smuggling a common feature of the Afghan landscape. By September 1996, the Taliban had captured Kabul, and, by early September 2001, they were on the verge of totally defeating the last pockets of resistance in Northeast Afghanistan. Had it not been for the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Taliban would still be dominant in Afghanistan and the United States government would be negotiating with them on matters dealing with the construction of energy pipelines and curtailment of drug production. The reconstruction of Afghanistan and human rights would not be at the top of the agenda in these negotiations.

Michael Griffin and Ahmed Rashid, both journalists, provide useful accounts (each in 16 chapters and about the same number of pages) of the emergence of the Taliban in Southwest Afghanistan, and their rapid success and domination of the country. Both books start from the fall of the revolutionary government of Afghanistan in April 1992; Rashid’s coverage ends in mid-1999, before General Pervez Musharraf’s coup in Pakistan, while Griffin’s account runs to the end of 2000.

The books provide a brief sketch of the various US/Saudi-subsidized factions that opposed the Soviet presence and the Afghan central government. We read at length about the role of the Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISI) in creating and subsidizing these factions. The United States government was the major force behind the creation of the “freedom fighters” or the “mujahedin.” The CIA recruited tens of thousands of these would be terrorists from Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan in the 1980s and provided the ideology, funding, arms, and training for them. Frank Anderson of the CIA’s Afghanistan Task Force has recently stated that the Afghanistan “war was fought with our [US] goal and their [Afghan] blood.” Within a few years of entering Kabul in 1992, these groups and the devastation they wreaked on Afghanistan spawned the Taliban. Although Pakistan was the midwife at the birth of the Taliban, the authors provide some of the ample evidence of the approval of this role by the United States. And both governments nourished the baby to its feet before deciding to kill it.

The chaotic conditions surrounding the fall of the revolutionary government of Afghanistan in 1992 and the collapse of its soft state structure are narrated in both books. At every major turn in the narrative, the question comes up as to why the United States would encourage such a rag-tag collection of proven terrorist groups to take charge of Afghanistan? By then, the Soviet Union had been discredited and defeated; before the fall of Kabul, the government of Afghanistan had enjoyed a reasonable degree of popular legitimacy, was prepared to work with the opposition groups, was adamantly and openly in opposition to a Wahhabi presence in Afghanistan, and was even willing to allow Muhammad Zahir, the exiled king, to return to the country and assume power. All these elements, implicitly or explicitly, constitute the framework within which the Interim Government of Afghanistan was created by the United States in Bonn in December 2001. Soon after the disruption of the patron-client relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the various mujahedin factions, especially those led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Burhanuddin Rabbani, the Afghan center collapsed, creating a free-for-all in which every Afghan faction and its external sponsor attempted to acquire territory and advantage. Both books provide vivid descriptions of the predictably bloody cycle of violence between the various ethnic and sectarian groups operating in a framework of frequently shifting alliances. From April 1992 to September 1996, anarchy and lawlessness reigned throughout the country.

Out of this chaotic environment, the Taliban movement emerged in Qandahar in late 1994. Griffin and Rashid provide somewhat similar descriptions of the local political conditions from which the Taliban arose. Many in their upper ranks were veterans of the US-subsidized jihad during which several of them had lost eyes and legs (Rashid, pp. 5-6). Their supreme leader, Mulla Muhammad Omar, had lost his right eye while fighting with one of the freedom fighter bands. In both accounts, from the start, the Pakistani ISI emerges as the prime supporter and mover of the Talibs. From the outset, the Jama’at-i Islami party of Pakistan and the trucking interests of that country offered substantial ideological and material support. The Saudi-supported madrasa system of Islamic schools in Pakistan provided a continuous flow of manpower for fighting. Shortly after their birth, the Taliban found themselves hosting arrangements for Pakistan-sponsored truck convoys moving through Western Afghanistan to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In due course, Afghanistan became a haven for international smugglers and the home for a “criminalized economy” (See Barnett R. Rubin, “The Political Economy of War and Peace in Afghanistan,” World Development, 28:10 (2000) pp., 1789-1803). In early 1995, Saudi Arabia and the United States had signed an agreement with the government of Turkmenistan for the construction of an energy pipeline in Western Afghanistan to connect Turkmenistan with Pakistan. In mid-March 1995, Senator Hank Brown, a member of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, visited Qandahar and invited the Taliban to send representatives to the hearings his committee was to hold later that year (Griffin, p. 82). In April 1998, Bill Richardson, then-US Representative to the United Nations (three months later, confirmed as US Secretary of Energy) visited Afghanistan (Rashid, p. 71), ostensibly to iron out political differences between the Taliban and their local opponents. Subsequent to these talks, the American oil company UNOCAL undertook extensive negotiations with the Taliban for the construction of the pipeline through Western Afghanistan. (Zalmay Khalilzad, George W. Bush’s personal representative to the current US-installed Interim Government of Afghanistan, worked with UNOCAL in these negotiations).

Each book devotes a chapter to the introduction of thousands of non-Afghans, mostly Arabs, into the CIA campaign against the Soviet Union and the government of Afghanistan. The person who spearheaded the recruitment of these international terrorists was Usama Bin Ladin. Griffin’s treatment contains more detail about this “Nest of Vipers” in Afghanistan and the United States’ responsibility for creating it. There is an eerie premonition in the pages of these books about the dangers that lay ahead for Bin Ladin and his erstwhile patron who abandoned Afghanistan and let him and his recruits loose in the caves of Afghanistan.

Throughout both books, the United States appears as ignorant and uninformed about Afghanistan, and capricious, uncertain, and contradictory in its objectives in Central and South Asia. Likewise, both books suggest that exaggerated fear of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism deprived the United States of the confidence and clarity of purpose required to deal effectively with the Taliban and other regimes in the area. However, the authors say little about the objectives of Saudi Arabia. It can be reasoned, however, that the Saudis initially agreed to match United States’ dollars for the subsidy of the terrorist freedom fighters in the 1980s because they saw in Afghanistan an opening for the introduction of Wahhabism. Their continued support of Usama Bin Ladin was couched in the latter’s mentoring of the Taliban leadership in draconian Wahhabi doctrines. Now that Bin Ladin and Al-Qa’ida are being swept from Afghanistan, it is likely that the Saudis’ interest there will wane as evidenced by their cold reserve towards post-Taliban political developments in Afghanistan.

Griffin and Rashid should be judged as journalists, not as social scientists. Both appear unacquainted with the social science literature dealing with Afghanistan. However, both have spent time in Afghanistan and exhibit command of a vast and complex body of raw information. Occasionally, they both leap to conclusions that lack ethnographic and historical foundations. They both make the mistake of considering the Taliban as an exclusively Pashtun movement, overlooking the fact that the movement was Wahhabi inspired, had little to do with the Pashtun social structure, and contained large numbers of non-Pashtun Afghans as well as Punjabis and Sindhis from Pakistan, as well as thousands of Arabs and hundreds of Muslims from other countries. The Taliban appear to be truly an international multi-ethnic Sunni neo-fundamentalist movement. The authors uncritically accept the thesis that the pre-1978 rulers of Afghanistan were Pashtuns. The fact is that during this period the country was ruled by people who did not speak or practice Pashtu. The exiled King Muhammad Zahir, most of his family, and much of his governmental bureaucratic elite did not speak that language. Ahmed Rashid makes a crucial mistake in concluding that “[in] the past the (provincial) governors and senior local officials were usually drawn from the local elite, reflecting the local ethnic make-up of the population” (p. 99). In reality, it was the policy of past Afghan central governments to have non-local provincial and district governors. The Taliban did not break new ground in appointing outsiders as provincial governors.

The books under review are well written and contain extensive notes. It would have been appropriate to provide page numbers in the footnotes; why should one have to read a whole book or an article to find the specific page for an important quotation or idea? Overall, as journalists, Michael Griffin and Ahmed Rashid have produced two timely and informative books on a topic that is certain to fire the imagination of both scholars and elements in the news and entertainment media.

Reviewer’s Note:

In Western discourse the neo-fundamentalist Taleban (rendered Taliban in this journal) movement, its multitudes and individual members are awkwardly, often incorrectly, syntaxed. In Paxtu (Pakhto, and, in this journal, Pushtu) the movement is rendered da talebano ghorzang and in Dari (Afghan Farsi), jonbesh-e taleban. In Paxtu and Dari usage, the noun taleb (student, seeker of knowledge) is gendered, and the second vowel in the noun is the short e, not the long i. The correct local contexts use taleb for singular male, taleban for plural male and the movement and, theoretically, taleba for singular female, taleban (Dari) and talebanay (Paxtu) for plural female. In English renditions, it would be correct to say “Taleban” for the movement and plural male (as locally used), “Taleb” for singular male and “Talebs” for plural male. Thus, we can correctly say: The Taleban (or Talebs’) movement included thousands of Pakistani Talebs, hundreds of Tajiks, many Uzbeks, and one Taleb from the United States. Every Taleb was required to grow a beard. Some, not all, Talebs (Taleban) were Paxtuns. The movement’s Supreme Council included a number of one-eyed and one-legged Talebs. The Taleban are no longer in control of Kabul.

In the 8 year war with Iraq and Iran, it was Kuwait that funded the majority of the war because they were allies. Iraq was unable to pay back the $40 billion dollars to Kuwait. They weren’t able to resolve this issue and by 1990, Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing its oil through slant drilling. Iraq believed that Kuwait was part of its territory and blamed the split on the United Kingdom. There was even an alleged conspiracy against Iraq with Saddam Hussein claiming:

“America is coordinating with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Kuwait in a conspiracy against us. They are trying to reduce the price of oil to affect our military industries and our scientific research, to force us to reduce the size of our armed forces….You must expect from another direction an Israeli military air strike, or more than one, to destroy some of our important targets as part of this conspiracy”

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and occupied Kuwait for 7 months. The invasion didn’t last for too long because of Operation Desert Storm which successfully liberated Kuwait in February 1991.

- Invasion of Kuwait

Why is this important? Usama bin Laden was infuriated that US-led Allied forces where in Saudia Arabia. The strategic positioning in Saudia Arabia was to protect it from Iraq if it tried to invade it. Usama bin Laden had ambitions to overthrow Saudi Arabia and believed it was corrupt.

“When the American troops entered Saudi Arabia, the land of the two holy places Mecca and Medina, there was a strong protest from the ‘ulama’ religious authorities and from students of the Shari‘a law all over the country against the interference of American troops. This big mistake by the Saudi regime of inviting the American troops revealed their deception. They had given their support to nations that were fighting against Muslims. They helped the Yemen Communists against the southern Yemeni Muslims and helping Yassir Arafat’s regime fight Hamas who opposed the peace process in the Middle East. After it insulted and jailed the ‘ulama’ 18 months ago, the Saudi regime lost its legitimacy.”

[...]

“The Saudi people have remembered now what the ‘ulama’ told them and they realise America is the main reason for their problems.

“The ordinary man knows that his country is the largest oil producer in the world, yet at the same time he is suffering from taxes and bad services. Now the people understand the speeches of the ‘ulama’ in the mosques – that our country has become an American colony. They act decisively with every action to kick the Americans out of Saudi Arabia. What happened in Riyadh and Khubar when 24 Americans were killed in two bombings is clear evidence of the huge anger of Saudi people against America. The Saudis now know their real enemy is America.”

[...]

“I believe that sooner or later the Americans will leave Saudi Arabia and that the war declared by America against the Saudi people means war against all Muslims everywhere. Resistance against America will spread in many, many places in Muslim countries. Our trusted leaders, the ‘ulama’, have given us a fatwa that we must drive out the Americans. The solution to this crisis is the withdrawal of American troops … their military presence is an insult for the Saudi people.”

He also made these comments:

“We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet’s Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World. Due to its subordination to the Jews the arrogance and haughtiness of the US regime has reached, to the extent that they occupied the qibla of the Muslims (Arabia) who are more than a billion in the world today. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries. As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the two holy places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of the two holy places. The country of the two holy places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims. A reaction might take place as a result of US government’s hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600 thousand Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians. This is what we say. As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places and its support of its agent regimes who filled our prisons with our best children and scholars. We ask that may God release them.”

[...]

“The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian Peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.”

[...]

“The call to wage war against America was made because America has spearheaded the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called ‘Greater Israel.’ Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. [...] Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. [...]“

These quotes come from an unclassified Norwegian Defence Research Establishment document which has collected interviews with Usama bin Laden. I was intrigued with Usama bin Laden’s anger against America that is influenced by his rabid ideology of Arab nationalism. He didn’t clearly think through the consequences of his actions. There will be more intervention (imperialism!) to defeat terrorism and it won’t be solved by isolationism and a self-defeatist attitude.

På FBI:s “most wanted-lista” står Bin Laden som ett självklart namn. Men inte för att ha kört in två plan i WTC – nej, det finns det inga “hårda bevis” för det enligt FBI. Frågan varför han av FBI endast beskylls för dådet mot amerikanska ambassader i Kenya och Tanzania 1998 har gäckat amerikaner rätt länge. När the Muckraker Reports Paul V. Sheridan frågade FBI fick han följande svar:

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om obama, USA, Afghanistan, FBI, kriget mot terrorismen, 11 september, 9/11, elfte september, usama bin laden, bin laden, terrorism

Washington’s Blog

Before you hear what she has to say, you should know a little about Sibel Edmonds’ background.

Edmonds is a former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible.

Some of Edmonds allegations’ have been confirmed in the British press.

Now, Edmonds is saying that Osama Bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11, and that that fact is being covered up because the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years.

Is there are confirmation of Edmonds’ claim?

Yes.

According to one of the most reputable French papers, CIA agents met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11, when he was already supposedly wanted for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

Two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her “In two days, you’re going to hear big news and you’re not going to hear from me for a while.” US officials later told CNN that “in recent years they’ve been able to monitor some of bin Laden’s telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded.” Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.

So American forces had many opportunities to capture Bin Laden, and yet failed to do so.

More here

Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US until 9/11

Against all enemies

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell on the Mike Malloy radio show, guest-hosted by Brad Friedman (audio, partial transcript).

HOUR 1: A quick Mark Sanford rant, and then Sibel Edmonds on “state secrets,” the media and more.
HOUR 2: Finishing up with Sibel and callers. David Swanson on torture accountability and at least one caller who disagrees.

In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained ‘intimate relations’ with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, “all the way until that day of September 11.”

These ‘intimate relations’ included using Bin Laden for ‘operations’ in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These ‘operations’ involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner “as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict,” that is, fighting ‘enemies’ via proxies.

As Sibel has previously described, and as she reiterates in this latest interview, this process involved using Turkey (with assistance from ‘actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia’) as a proxy, which in turn used Bin Laden and the Taliban and others as a proxy terrorist army.

More here

“We can’t have effective strategy without cultural knowledge. If you look at the problems we’ve had — in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Somalia — they’ve been based on flawed assumptions about who those people are.” — Montgomery McFate, senior social scientist, Human Terrain System, quoted in Wired.

“In the current climate, there is broad agreement among operators and researchers that many, if not most, of the challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted from our failure early on to understand the cultures in which coalition forces were working.” — “The Human Terrain System: A CORDS for the 21st Century“

“The near-term focus of the HTS program is to improve the military’s ability to understand the highly complex local socio-cultural environment in the areas where they are deployed” — Human Terrain System.

I “get it,” really I do. It is important to have an understanding of other cultures if you are seeking to win hearts and minds, prevent any unnecessary violence, and eventually win peace. I get it. It’s simple. That’s the problem.

Leaving aside such inconveniences as questioning whether there is sufficient historical proof for the thesis that people of different cultures that understand each other, even like each other, never go to war, or the question as to whether the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were a matter of, “Oops! I misunderstood your culture when I dropped those bombs and entered without permission — who knew you had such intricate little rules of behaviour” — or that the right of U.S. troops to be in Afghanistan goes without saying, the question remains:

Why in Afghanistan?

In Canada, and other NATO member states where majorities of voters have demanded an immediate exit from Afghanistan (in mild deference to the voter, the Canadian government promises we will be out by 2011…let’s see if there isn’t another “extension”),  the logic behind the occupation of Afghanistan is revealed to be thin pretense. That many in the U.S., the lead force behind the war in Afghanistan, continue as if it were normal, logical, reasonable, and worse yet, justifiable to be occupying Afghanistan, is a serious problem.  Some call it “the good war” in contrast to the war in Iraq, even though the “merits” for invading either of them are equally shallow. True, support for the war seems to be declining even in the U.S., although recent poll results paint a blurred picture, while an allegedly “radical” organization such as MoveOn.org has been relatively silent about the war in Afghanistan. So one still  needs to ask: why? Let’s help them along with some answers.

Afghanistan never attacked the United States. The Taliban were not responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. on 11 September 2001. Bin Laden is not wanted for the attacks of 9/11.

But, as the accusation goes, the Taliban harboured Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden to the United States, so they were attacked.

The Taliban’s response to George W. Bush’s demand was to request evidence of any complicity by Bin Laden, and if there was any they would consider turning him over for trial. There is nothing unreasonable about that request: “The Taliban has said Mr. bin Laden lacks the communications tools to direct such an operation, and that the U.S. hasn’t presented evidence of his complicity” (Wall Street Journal). Indeed, Bin Laden denied any knowledge or involvement in the attacks, not once, but at least five times, just in late 2001 alone ([1][2][3][4][5]). Yes, but…there was a videotaped confession by Bin Laden — except that the videotape was a plain fabrication, that does not show a man who even remotely looks like Bin Laden, writes with the wrong hand, is very heavy, wears jewelry, and unlike Bin Laden the engineering contractor, does not know the difference between iron and steel. Of course, this does not mean that Bin Laden was not involved, it just means there is no solid proof to substantiate the assertion that he is guilty. The FBI agrees on this point.

What was routinely ignored were Bin Laden’s own statements on the 9/11 attacks and the question of terrorism. He does not agree that the attacks were aimed at civilians: “The September 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America’s icons of military and economic power” (source). I could have said that — and I certainly had nothing to do with 9/11 either. Asked if his real target was the U.S. government, and not all Americans, Bin Laden replies, “Yes!” and adds:

“The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge in massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don’t get security, the Americans, too would not get security.” (source)

Does Bin Laden say he hates all Westerners?

“There are many innocent and good-hearted people in the West. The US media instigates them against Muslims. However, some good-hearted people are protesting against the US attacks because human nature abhors injustice.

“When Muslims were massacred under UN patronage in Bosnia, I am aware that some officers of the State Department had resigned in protest. Many years ago, the US ambassador in Egypt had resigned in protest against the policies of President Jimmy Carter. Nice and civilised persons are everywhere.” (source)

If you are going to proudly claim responsibility for what was probably one of the most stunning choreographies of violence, against the world’s leading superpower no less, then you probably should not be denying responsibility five times and then expressing your appreciation for the presence of many good people in the West who are not your enemy.

Also, if you are the accusing government, then you will probably want your FBI’s list of “most wanted terrorists” — which does list Bin Laden — to at least formally accuse Bin Laden of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Even now, the FBI’s page on Bin Laden does not say that:

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

In addition, when pressed for evidence, Colin Powell had promised it, then was contradicted by Ari Fleischer about how much information would be released, and then nothing at all was forthcoming (sources). From a Talib perspective, the accusations against Bin Laden were pure poppycock, and were rightly ignored. From a Talib perspective — that’s if one really cares to “understand” them — the invasion was unjustified from the first day.

In summary, the United States attacked Afghanistan with about as much intelligence as it had for Iraq — none at all. Not only did Afghanistan not attack the U.S., nor did the Taliban, nor are the Taliban and Al Qaeda the same, nor did the Al Qaeda leader claim responsibility, nor was evidenced furnished…but now it seems that Al Qaeda is no longer even in Afghanistan. Says who? Says General David Petraeus, repeatedly, that’s who.

Yet, not only are we still in Afghanistan, we are hiding under women’s skirts in order to justify our plan to be there forever.

Why not at home first?

So while I do not “get it” about why we are in Afghanistan, as is the Human Terrain System, I wonder if “cross-cultural understanding for peace” should not be top priority at home — you know, educate your own people about other cultures so that they do not leave the U.S. with the intent to fire on others as if they were animals, so that you do not have crusading soldiers who think that their duty is to convert Afghans to Christianity,  or who make a mockery of ideals of liberty and equality by joining neo-Nazi web sites while on active duty.

Instead, it seems the closest we have come to seeing a Human Terrain system at home was not to eliminate ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and an inflated sense of the self-worth of one’s way of life that demands the erasure of all others — no, it was for the purpose of urban policing, according to Roberto González:

“Human terrain is not a new concept. Its reactionary roots stretch back 40 years, when it appeared in a report by the infamous US House Un-American Activities Committee about the perceived threat of Black Panthers and other militant groups. From the beginning, human terrain was linked to population control…”

In that case, it seems we have a missed opportunity — but that can now be redeemed. I will truly believe that the Human Terrain System is a force for peace when I see it working to spread knowledge, understanding, and cross-cultural goodwill among these forces of Islamophobia and racist Arab-hatred right in the United States:

• Anti-CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
• Campus Watch
• Christian Action Network (here too)
• Daniel Pipes
• Frontpagemag.com (David Horowitz)
• Islamist Watch
• Jihad Watch
• Little Green Footballs
• Michelle Malkin
• Middle East Forum
• Religion of Peace
• Republican Jewish Coalition
• Stop the Madrassa

Of course that is not an exhaustive list, because as much as I am a friend of HTS I cannot map their own human terrain for them. Instead what they can do is assign five-person teams to each of these entities, and others, after having mapped the fecal terrain of American hatred. Human Terrain Teams can educate them out of their deep pits of ignorance and slander, so that one day the idea of bashing minorities and waging wars to serve hyperconsumption will be as repulsive to the bigots as it is to the decent human beings who struggle to live on this planet.

Monti Says: Liar, Liar, pants on fire!

In interviews with the FBI before his death, the former Iraqi dictator said he was more afraid of Iran than the U.S. and denounced Usama bin Laden as “a zealot.”

Times of London
FOXNews.com
Thursday, July 02, 2009

Saddam Hussein let the world believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because he did not want to appear weak to Iran, according to the Washington Post.

In interviews with the FBI before he was hanged, the former Iraqi president also denounced Usama bin Laden as “a zealot” and said the United States was not Iraq’s enemy, the Post reports.

In fact, he claimed, he felt so vulnerable to the threat from “fanatic” leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a “security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region,” according to declassified accounts of the interviews released on Wednesday and published in the Washington Post

George W. Bush, supported by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, ordered the invasion of Iraq six years ago on the grounds that Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, despite the failure of U.N. weapons inspectors to uncover any such weapons.

During his interviews — 20 formal interrogations and five “casual conversations” which were carried out in 2004, Hussein admitted that he should have allowed the United Nations to witness the destruction of his country’s weapons stockpile after the 1991 Gulf War.

The FBI summaries of the interviews were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute, and posted on its Web site on Wednesday. The last formal interview, held on May 1 was completely redacted but the others had few deletions, the Washington Post reports.

The formal interviews, held from Feb. 7 to May 1, covered Hussein’s rise to power, the Kuwait invasion, and the crackdown on the Shiite uprising in extensive detail, while the subject of the weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda were raised in the casual conversations, held after the formal interviews from May 10 to June 28.

George Piro, the agent who conducted the interviews, raised Iraq’s alleged links with Al Qaeda in his last conversation with Hussein but Hussein’s replies negated the Bush administration’s efforts to link him with Usama bin Laden.

Hussein told Piro that he had never met bin Laden and that the two men did not share “the same belief or vision.”

He said that “he was a believer in God but was not a zealot . . . that religion and government should not mix.”

When the FBI agent said there were reasons why Hussein and Al Qaeda should have cooperated, as they had the same enemies in the United States and Saudi Arabia, Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq’s enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies.

He also made it clear that he considered Iran a greater threat than the United States, saying that he was convinced Iran was trying to annex the largely Shiite southern Iraq.

“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of U.N. inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq.”

Hussein was later transferred to Iraqi custody, and he was hanged in December 2006.

Detainees Freed in Bermuda Say China Worse Than Gitmo – Political News – FOXNews.com.

FOX News spotted the newly freed detainees at a guest cottage complex on the island without security or electronic monitoring, but their attorney said they will have to periodically check in with local police

FOXNews.com

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The four of the Chinese Muslims, or Uighurs, released to Bermuda from the Guantanamo Bay prison told FOX News that they are innocent, glad to be free and hold no grudges against the United States for their captivity.

The men, who range from 31 to 38 years old, also said they think life in China, where they face persecution, is worse than life at Guantanamo.

With the help of a translator, they said they didn’t know anything about Al Qaeda or Usama bin Laden, despite past allegations that they had aided the terror mastermind’s escape.

“I am not a terrorist. I have never been terrorist,” one of the men told FOX News. “I want to live peacefully.”

The Uighurs, released this week, are staying at a guest cottage complex on the island without security or electronic monitoring, but their attorney said they will have to periodically check in with local police. 

The release of the Uighurs comes amid increasing political tensions in Washington over what to do with the more than 200 detainees being held at the Guantanamo facility following President Obama’s pledge to close the facility within a year of taking office.

But the Uighurs may be among the least threatening of the detainees whose fate must be decided, given that the Justice Department under the Bush administration already had decided that they should no longer be classified as “enemy combatants.”

A September 2008 federal court motion filed by the Justice Department confirmed their change of status and declared that all 17 Uighurs being held at Gunatanamo should be resettled in a foreign country.

The Uighurs will be eligible for Bermudian passports in the future, but the U.S. has a mechanism in place to block their entry into the U.S. unless the federal government chooses to let them in.

Their attorney says the Uighurs are determined to stay in Bermuda as part of a guest worker program. There is a provision in that program that in limited circumstances allows guest workers to get Bermudian citizenship.

However, the transfer of the Uighurs has been criticized not only by U.S. Republican lawmakers but by the governments of the United Kingdom, which controls the territory of Bermuda, and China, which wants the Uighurs returned.

On Friday, some members of the Bermudan government who said they’d not been informed of the transfer questioned the wisdom of moving the inmates to the island located 640 miles off the coast of North Carolina, saying it could hurt tourism, which is Bermuda’s chief industry.

But the Bermudan government defended its decision to take the Uighurs, whom the U.S. feared would face torture if sent back to China.

The Uighurs told FOX News that they plan to make their home in Bermuda, probably working first in some form of manual labor. They also may open a restaurant and look forward to swimming and fishing.

FOX News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

CAIRO — Al Qaeda’s chief Usama bin Laden denounced Somalia’s new president, who was elected as part of a peace push in the lawless African country, and urged in a new audio recording Thursday on the Internet for Somali militants to topple him.

The 11-and-a half minute recording was released by Al Qaeda’s media arm As-Sahab and posted on militant Web sites known as clearing houses for Islamic messaging.

Focused entirely on Somalia and entitled “Fight on, champions of Somalia,” it carried an often seen bin Laden photograph with a map of Somalia in the background. The Arabic audio had English subtitles.

In the message, bin Laden lashed out at the country’s new president, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, elected by Somali lawmakers on Jan. 31.

The moderate Somali Islamist, who earlier was a top leader of the country’s Islamic Courts, replaced a predecessor who resigned in December citing failure to end the Islamic insurgency.

Ahmed’s election, bin Laden claimed, was “induced by the American envoy in Kenya,” a reference to the U.S. ambassador in Nairobi.

Ahmed “changed and turned back on his heels … to partner up with the infidel” in a national unity government, bin Laden said. “How can intelligent people believe that yesterday’s enemies on the basis of religion can become today’s friends? This can only happen if one of the two parties abandons his religion.”

KOMMUNIKATION: Många händelser som initialt bara fick begränsad medial uppmärksamhet har i efterhand visat sig vara av historisk betydelse.

I dagens tidningar kan man läsa en liten notis - signerat TT-AFP-Reuter - som möjligtvis tyder på att Osama bin Ladens isolation har börjar tära på den gamle fanatikerns nerver.

Notisen (just denna bearbetad av Sydsvenskan) är så kort att den kan citeras i sin helhet;

Många arabledare deltar i “korsfarar-sionist-alliansen” mot muslimer, förklarar al-Qaida-ledaren Usama bin Laden i en ljudinspelning som al-Jazira spelade upp i tv i går.

- Länderna i den muslimska världen, från Indonesien till Mauretanien, är uppdelade i två grupper: En del är skurkar, andra är ännu större skurkar. TT-AFP-Reuter

Även om notisen innehåller många av de traditionella käpphästar som brukar kommuniceras från al-Qaidas propagandacentral(er) har det denna gång något av desperation över sig (möjligtvis i kombination med fortsatt storhetsvansinne).

Frågan är om det är speciellt smart att slå vilt åt alla håll och anklaga samtliga muslimska länder för att vara korrupta, gå “imperialisternas” ärenden och alliera sig med “sionisterna” i Israel.

Kanske det gamla bockskägget borde fundera över att åtminstone försöka behålla några vänner? Kan inte vara bra för en världserövrare att bli helt isolerad.

Det är uppenbart att det inte bara är imperier som riskerar att drabbas av vad professor Paul Kennedy kallade “imperial overstretch”. Även terroristorganisationer kan drabbas av samma problem när man försöker vara “relevant” och greppa över för stort område.

Är det där bin Laden och hans al-Qaida nu befinner sig?