Audio tape of "Bin Laden" surfaces...praises recent attacks.

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

How Osama’s Tape Was Given To Al Jazeera

WASHINGTON, Nov 14: An Islamabad-based correspondent for the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera said a man gave him the audiotape supposedly of Osama bin Laden in which the suspected terrorist mastermind hails recent terrorist attacks around the world and threatens the United States and its allies.

“He was not wearing a mask. So I saw his face and I had never seen him before,” Ahmed Muhaffaq Ziedan told Dawn of the tape’s courier.

In a telephone interview from Islamabad, Ziedan said someone called him **"at my home on Tuesday night and said he has an important message for me.

“He asked me to meet him at a public place. I went there and was soon approached by a young man,”** said Ziedan, adding that he could not describe the man’s feature because he was “afraid” and did not **“look at him very closely.” **

**“I did not see whether he came in a car or used a public transport and I did not try to follow him either. I was afraid.” **

Ziedan said the man gave him a TDK audiocassette and went away. **“I rushed back to my car and played the tape, it was bin Laden’s voice,” **he said.

“There’s no doubt about it. It was his voice,” said Ziedan who interviewed Osama in 2000 and 2001 and also has had several group meetings with the Al Qaida chief.

Ziedan, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Islamabad since 2000, also has written a book on Osama and believes the man is alive.

“The messenger asked me to come to a crowded place where he could easily mingle with the crowd and that’s what he did. He came to me, and said he has a tape for me from bin Laden and disappeared. It took less than half a minute,” said the Al Jazeera correspondent. **"I tried to ask some questions but he did not respond.

“It was a brief message, less than three minutes. I played the tape again and again and was 100 per cent sure it’s bin Laden. So I immediately transmitted it to Al Jazeera.” **

Ziedan said he believes Osama is alive because Al Qaida does not hide the death of its leaders. “Every time somebody dies, they announce it proudly, saying such and such leader has been martyred,” he said. He also dismissed speculation that Osama had already left Afghanistan when the US forces launched a military offensive in Oct, 2001.

**“My sources tell me bin Laden was there with his people in Tora Bora and disappeared only after the US forces destroyed his last hideout,” **said Ziedan.

42

How about laying off bin ladin for a while and waiting 'til he resurfaces voluntarily. Vaise hi bechare ke peeche parey hain.

:smack:

43

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Degas: *
.. so many innocent people died in USA and Afghanistan and this coward is still alive!
[/QUOTE]

Exactly

44

I have always been of the opinnion:

That if OBL would have voluntarily surrendered himself after 9/11, ....even I might have respected him.

I think he would have gained empathy for Palestinians and Iraqi's, by sacraficing himself and having his say in an open court.

(Many Americans have soft hearts. We have feelings.)

(though I am skeptical that he really gives a darn about Afghans, Pali's or Iraqi's)

If he really cared about what happend to the Avg Afghan's he would have. They were his sacraficial lambs. He didn't care what happend to them as long as he got away..and heard his followers cheering.

I think his main objective is devilish. Revenge. Hatred. Maybe he thinks he is the reincarnated Saladin.

He has fooled so many people into hatred and discontent.

When one speaks of Hitler..they should keep OBL in mind. And Americans as the scapegoats.

He could have saved lives. He could have prevented more suffering and strife. He didn't. He didn't care.

Doesn't the Torah/Bible warn against following false saviours?

45

The new tape of Bin Laden is very shocky. It is clear with his tape that he is not happy with the world coliation. He want U.S all alone in the world. That's why he saying to Australia, France etc that it is not your war and leave them alone. He wants any country to say to U.S.A that we give up. This will help OBL to surface new strikes.

46

Time Magzine on OBL

Why Can’t We Find bin Laden?

His taped voice proves to Washington that he’s alive and signaling spectacular attacks. An inside look at what the U.S. is doing to nail him—and why the campaign has fizzled so far

47

i have to disagree with what u have just said, what do u mean all Arabs are binl la din that is very effensive (not that am an Arab) but 2 of my best friends are and what i have to say to u is that not all Arabs are the same , u will be suprised that most Arabs that i now are totally against bin la din.

48

"How about laying off bin ladin for a while and waiting 'til he resurfaces voluntarily."

The problem there, sweetie, is that the only time he resurfaces is to praise a terrorist attack, or issue a new fatwa against western civilians.

49

:k::k:

50

OG had a very good point on intentional targetting of innocent people versus innocent people getting caught in the cross fire.

To me there is a difference between a guy blowing up a bldg full of civilians and a guy attacking enemy and unintentionally harming others.

I would add that in such scenarios, police, military whoever. they have to really calculate their actions and plan it, and figure out whether the toll of innocent lives is worth getting some bad guys. If the collateral factor is disregarded and is the last bullet on the decision criteria whether or not to take an action than its inhumane and shows bad judgement and low regard for human life.

However it does not equal targetted killing of innocent people.

What some hardcore militants say is that okay by the same token they have declared war on US and the civilians were the collateral damage. It would be different if they had attacked some military installation and soem pizza delivery guy or a travelling troupe of clowns got killed in teh crossfire, but what they did was attack a building where inncocent people were working. A deliberate attack on US using civilian casualties as a weapon of fear. they used civilian deaths as their weapon, and that is not right, nor humane, and definitely not Islamic.

Osama should be fried..he is a a lowlife megalomaniac thug..nothing else

51

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
OG had a very good point on intentional targetting of innocent people versus innocent people getting caught in the cross fire.
[/QUOTE]

Tell that to people who lose loved ones. Like i said to our "Military experts" on the Russian murder of people, it is very easy to make legal and civil distinctions when you arent directly involved. Welcome to the modern world, individuality and selfishness are acceptable norms of society.

52

CM.

Mr. Fraudia also said,

"To me there is a difference between a guy blowing up a bldg full of civilians and a guy attacking enemy and unintentionally harming others."

And, "I would add that in such scenarios, police, military whoever. they have to really calculate their actions and plan it, and figure out whether the toll of innocent lives is worth getting some bad guys. If the collateral factor is disregarded and is the last bullet on the decision criteria whether or not to take an action than its inhumane and shows bad judgement and low regard for human life."

Also, "However it does not equal targetted killing of innocent people."

But a good idea, all in all?, because fear is a good weapon?

Huh?

Please? What was OBL's point????

And Please? Why civilians rather than military?

AvgGirl

53

What was OBL's point? God knows. I dont for certain. But the point is simple. You all can sit pretty behind computers and discuss the difference between targetting civilians and not targetting them when you are safe and comfy in your homes. Legal and civil discussions go out the window when you are directly affected. Who gives a damn honestly that the isrealis were aiming for a hamas leader when a 2 year old girl dies due to lousy aiming?

Historically civilians were a target starting of the second world war and honestly from "true democracies" to "evil dictatorships" all have targetted civilians. It is the name of the game. Accept it and move on. Civilians are targetted, that is a bad thing. Vile, dispicable etc etc. But it isnt just going to stop.

Step out of moral and perfect life and try to step into the shoes of a man who has lost a child due to some others firing at each other. Imagine hatred building up for 50 years. Families without food, without education, without money, trying to meet unends meet and then they lose a cherished member of their family. Are you honestly going to tell me you would just say "hey too bad. She got caught in a cross fire, its not like the shooter was aiming for her." Most normal humans dont feel like that. They get hurt and angry. When that happens they will take action.

54

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *

Tell that to people who lose loved ones. Like i said to our "Military experts" on the Russian murder of people, it is very easy to make legal and civil distinctions when you arent directly involved. Welcome to the modern world, individuality and selfishness are acceptable norms of society.
[/QUOTE]

CM

I am steadfast against action by militaries where they calculate the civilian casualties and go for it even if they had approaches that would minimize the civilian casualties and be harder for them. If there are options and they take the way where knowingly they are putting civilians into risk, I am completely against it.

At the same time, I am against people attacking other people with revenge as a motive. I knew people in the WTC who perished and they had no beef with osama's clan.

If you come and stab me tomorrow or kick my brother, Even if I give in to the urge for revenge, I should come after you and not after your sister. Thats kinda what OBL did, he had a beef with military and govt, what did some lad working in WTC have to do with it.

55

Pretty words both of you that mean basically nothing. As a suit OG i didnt expect you to be as politically savy as our legal expert myvoice. Now lets see 3 years of attacks...how many muslims see it as a bad thing? What third party nations think is irrelevant.

Fraudia WTC was wrong.But we are discussing different scenerios and with very different variables. The WTC attack was against innocents, there was no crossfire scenerio available. Thus your original statement would not stand in such a case. Only scenerios were both conditions are applicable (crossfire and targetting civilians) could be compared. In such a case, it doesnt really matter. People die. But unprovoked attacks on civilians arent acceptable.

56

People here were so kind to pointout "blowback" to the US.

That being the unintended consequence of an action.

Targeting innocents will have consequences. OBL praising bombings of civilian targets will have consequences. To imagine that endorsement, for any reason, of the rampant bombings that are spreading like wildfire throughout the world would not have ramifications is naive. The more he invokes the name of Islam the more he assumes the mantle of leadership of the entire religion. Endorsement of the same tactics by the Palestinians seems to further corroborate the fact that ANY means to achieve an end is acceptable.

Go back to the picture of that gooney happy smiling Bali Bombing suspect. This is what is accellerating throughout the world with your tacit approval. Well done!

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Also why are they finger-printed? Ask your racial profiling govt. Unless you agree all muslims are terroists.
[/QUOTE]

I didn't realize that only Muslims lived Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria, is that true?

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Fraudia WTC was wrong.But we are discussing different scenerios and with very different variables. The WTC attack was against innocents, there was no crossfire scenerio available. Thus your original statement would not stand in such a case. Only scenerios were both conditions are applicable (crossfire and targetting civilians) could be compared. In such a case, it doesnt really matter. People die. But unprovoked attacks on civilians arent acceptable.
[/QUOTE]

I thought we were talking about Bin Laden's praise of attacks against civilians the recent attacks as well as the past ones etc.

59

LS

Please stick to the topic of this thread

60

:k: