Another tape by Zawahiri shows up

[ProfJohn]

The #2 guy in al-qeada released another propoganda tape Friday.
On the war in Iraq

"Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq,"

On the detention of terrorists

"Bush, you deceitful charlatan, 3 1/2 years have passed since your capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so how have you found us during this time? Losing and surrendering?"

"What you have perpetrated against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other Muslim captives in your prisons and the prisons of your slaves in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and elsewhere is not hidden from anyone, and we are a people who do not sleep under oppression and who do not abandon our revenge until our chests have been healed of those who have aggressed against us,"

On torture

"Your agents in the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have captured thousands of the youth and soldiers of Islam whom you made to taste at your hands and the hands of your agents various types of punishment and torture, But we, by Allah's grace, are taking revenge on their behalf daily from your troops and the troops of your allies and agents in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and all Muslim countries from Indonesia to Morocco, and moreover, on your own soil every day."

He also attacked the plan to send peace keepers to Darfur

"Do not allow the government of Khartoum to interfere, nor the governments of the Western Crusaders to interfere in your business. Be ready to stop the Crusaders campaign against you,"

I do see one good thing in his rant. We know it was made after the Popes comments, so the question is if this guy can make a tape and get it out so fast how come we haven't seen Osama on a tape in over two years? I am begining to think more and more that Osama is dead, or else he'd be making tapes like this too. (Either he is dead or they forgot what cave he is hiding in.)
FOX news link
BBC story

 

[Jaskalas]

Only part our people do not agree with him on is Darfur. If he drops that he could run for President in 08. I mean, the first three quotes you use from him repeat what we hear in these forums.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Only part our people do not agree with him on is Darfur. If he drops that he could run for President in 08. I mean, the first three quotes you use from him repeat what we hear in these forums.

Scary how right you are. When the left goes around talking about Bush lying and the torture all they are doing is giving the terrorists air and comfort, very sad.

 

[ntdz]

I think Zawahiri browses Anandtech and gets some of his quotes from Dave 🙂

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Only part our people do not agree with him on is Darfur. If he drops that he could run for President in 08. I mean, the first three quotes you use from him repeat what we hear in these forums.

Scary how right you are. When the left goes around talking about Bush lying and the torture all they are doing is giving the terrorists air and comfort, very sad.

Yes, I know. If the stupid left would just shut up and start torturing poeple, the world would be a better place...

 

[sandorski]

Much of what he said in the OP is true. Even you know they are true. That's why many of us here have been harping on these issues for years now!

You are giving the terrorists everything they need to appeal for more followers, if you insist on the status quo or even making the Laws/Rules more lax.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Only part our people do not agree with him on is Darfur. If he drops that he could run for President in 08. I mean, the first three quotes you use from him repeat what we hear in these forums.

Scary how right you are. When the left goes around talking about Bush lying and the torture all they are doing is giving the terrorists air and comfort, very sad.

No what's sad is that he doesn't have to lie for his Propoganda. What's even sadder is that you are directly calling those who voice an opinion based on the obvious as traitors.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Comparing those of us in this country who want to change course for the better to terrorists takes a page from the Rove/Bush playbook. Disgusting. Liars. If anything, you are the ones acting according to their plan, destroying our nation from within.

 

[Pabster]

Nice straw men from the replies already...

It is no coincidence that Zawahiri and other AQ royalty often cite and quote statements made by liberals. And no coincidence that much of the propaganda AQ throws out sounds an awful lot like Democrats on the campaign trail.

There's no way to deny such talk and behavior aids the enemy. No amount of straw men can change that.

 

[conjur]

Why is Zawahiri still a FREE MAN more than 5 years after 9/11???

:|

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Nice straw men from the replies already...

It is no coincidence that Zawahiri and other AQ royalty often cite and quote statements made by liberals. And no coincidence that much of the propaganda AQ throws out sounds an awful lot like Democrats on the campaign trail.

There's no way to deny such talk and behavior aids the enemy. No amount of straw men can change that.

You know what really aids the enemy? Invading a relatively stable country that had no ties with terrorists, and making it a terrorist haven, a beacon if you will, for creating more terrorists to fight the 'evil western empires'.

I'm gonna say that goes way beyond what any words could do.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Pabster
Nice straw men from the replies already...

It is no coincidence that Zawahiri and other AQ royalty often cite and quote statements made by liberals. And no coincidence that much of the propaganda AQ throws out sounds an awful lot like Democrats on the campaign trail.

There's no way to deny such talk and behavior aids the enemy. No amount of straw men can change that.

You know what really aids the enemy? Invading a relatively stable country that had no ties with terrorists, and making it a terrorist haven, a beacon if you will, for creating more terrorists to fight the 'evil western empires'.

I'm gonna say that goes way beyond what any words could do.

Yep Bush played right into Bin Laden's hands. Bin Laden's goal was to create an Islamic uprising against the West and Bush has done more to accomadate him than Bin Laden could have expected in his wildest dreams by invading and destabalizing Iraq.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Nice straw men from the replies already...

It is no coincidence that Zawahiri and other AQ royalty often cite and quote statements made by liberals. And no coincidence that much of the propaganda AQ throws out sounds an awful lot like Democrats on the campaign trail.

There's no way to deny such talk and behavior aids the enemy. No amount of straw men can change that.

Um, I don't think you really know what a straw man is...

Just because Zawahiri is entirely right in some of things he says, doesn't mean he is right about everything, or that his actions are defensible.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Only part our people do not agree with him on is Darfur. If he drops that he could run for President in 08. I mean, the first three quotes you use from him repeat what we hear in these forums.

Scary how right you are. When the left goes around talking about Bush lying and the torture all they are doing is giving the terrorists air and comfort, very sad.

No what's sad is that he doesn't have to lie for his Propoganda. What's even sadder is that you are directly calling those who voice an opinion based on the obvious as traitors.

:looking for the word traitor in my reply: hmmmm don't see it hmmmm

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Only part our people do not agree with him on is Darfur. If he drops that he could run for President in 08. I mean, the first three quotes you use from him repeat what we hear in these forums.

Scary how right you are. When the left goes around talking about Bush lying and the torture all they are doing is giving the terrorists air and comfort, very sad.

No what's sad is that he doesn't have to lie for his Propoganda. What's even sadder is that you are directly calling those who voice an opinion based on the obvious as traitors.

:looking for the word traitor in my reply: hmmmm don't see it hmmmm

:roll: What you said is the definition of "traitor".

 

[jackschmittusa]

I agree with ProfJohn "I do see one good thing in his rant.". But, unfortunatly, all of these bad things are true.

And your comment "Scary how right you are. When the left goes around talking about Bush lying and the torture all they are doing is giving the terrorists air and comfort, very sad.", is at least philosophically traitorous to the principles of our nation. You seek to bully those who have exercised their right, make that obligation, to critique and criticize our leaders when they are wrong. You seem to prefer a nation of lemmings in a lockstep march to the sea. That is very sad.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Pabster
Nice straw men from the replies already...

It is no coincidence that Zawahiri and other AQ royalty often cite and quote statements made by liberals. And no coincidence that much of the propaganda AQ throws out sounds an awful lot like Democrats on the campaign trail.

There's no way to deny such talk and behavior aids the enemy. No amount of straw men can change that.

You know what really aids the enemy? Invading a relatively stable country that had no ties with terrorists, and making it a terrorist haven, a beacon if you will, for creating more terrorists to fight the 'evil western empires'.

I'm gonna say that goes way beyond what any words could do.

Let's address the "no ties with terrorist" lie.
From the Weekly Standard How Bad Is the Senate Intelligence Report
Highlights:

As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's."

This is HUGE connection here

There is no mention in the report of Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who admitted mixing the chemicals for the bomb used in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, cited in the?July 2004 Senate report as an al Qaeda operation. The mastermind of that attack, Ramzi Yousef, is the nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Two weeks after the bombing, according a July 2004 report issued by the same Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Yasin fled to Iraq with Iraqi assistance. ABC News reported in 1994 that a Baghdad neighbor of Yasin's told them that he travels freely and "works for the government."

In June 2003, U.S. News & World Report described what a defense official called a "potentially significant link" between Iraq and al Qaeda that came, at that early date, from a single source. "A captured senior member of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, has told interrogators about meetings between Iraqi intelligence officials and top members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a group that merged with al Qaeda in the 1990s. The prisoner also described $300,000 in Iraqi transfers to the organization to pay for attacks in Egypt. The transfers were said to have been authorized by Saddam Hussein."

Remember the old aspirin factory that Clinton bombed, this is why they hit it

There is no mention of the Clinton administration's many public claims that Iraq was working with al Qaeda on chemical weapons development in Sudan. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the passage in the indictment of bin Laden "led [Richard] Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to [National Security Adviser Sandy] Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was 'probably a direct result of the Iraq-al Qaeda agreement.' Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the 'exact formula used by Iraq.'"

According to the report: "The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for 'special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan].' Preparations for 'Blessed July,' a regime-directed wave of 'martyrdom' operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion."

There is a LOT more if you read the article, but I think it is fair to say that Saddam had a TON of terror connections, including several to al-Qeada at one point or another.
I'd like to thank my research committee for bringing this article to me attention National Review
Mental Note: ask uncle Karl for another "loan" 🙂

 

[Aisengard]

Bwahahahahahaha! You really crack me up, John. Iraq-Al Queda agreement? Hahahahaha!

You know what they call that in politics! A joke!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Let's address the "no ties with terrorist" lie.

So then.....when do we invade DC? Afterall, we have had just as many, if not more ties with terrorism than Iraq has had.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sandorski
:roll: What you said is the definition of "traitor".

Sand, it is all about semantics.
On the war in Iraq
Saying ?I oppose the Iraq war because it distracted us from the real threat which is al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? is good
Saying ?Our criminal attack on Iraq was a tremendous evil and a blunder of stupendous proportions. This war has done sever and perhaps irreparable damage to the United States. The cost for this war should be the extinction of the Republican party as a political force in America. No party has ever been so deeply destructive to our nation. It is no wonder they try to call everybody who thinks differently than they treasonous. They know who they are. The Republican party might as well be an Al Quaeda cell.? is bad. BTW, this is an actual quote off a member of this forum, identify him and get a

On torture
Saying ?I don?t think that as Americans we should be using harsh interrogation techniques and that as a country we have to hold our selves to a higher standard of behavior? is good.
Saying ?I think prisoners were being treated worse than that here. You are fools to think the US military don't regularly torture people.? And ?Good point, but common sense and collected arguments don't matter to those biased to defend criminal military policy no matter how much you tell them.? is bad. Note that this posters is implying that the military regularly engages in torture and has a ?criminal military policy?

On the detention of terrorists
Saying ?We need to create a system that provides those captured on the battle field a fair and legal method of proving their innocence in keeping with our national and legal traditions.? Is good
Saying ?The people currently classified as "enemy combatants" and denied their basic human rights have not a shred of evidence against them, and yet they don't even have the right to challenge their imprisonment. Most of these people are probably innocent of any crime, and are being tortured for information they do not have and punished for crimes that they did not commit. The "reprehensible consequences" are the utter breakdown of respect for human rights and dignity, and the anti-American sentiments that follow those actions. If you honestly think that we are justified in locking people away in inhuman living conditions for years on end without so much as telling them why they're being imprisoned, then I suggest you try it for a little, and see how necessary it is then.? Is bad? yet another direct quote from these boards.

One last thing, on your use of the word traitor I?ll give you another great quote from one of our own members ?Bolton is a criminal. He's a traitor against this nation's ideals and should be hanged.? I don?t think what I said compares to what that poster said.
When the radicals on these boards and in our country make these types of statements they make it that much easier for the terror leaders to convince their people that why they are saying is the truth, all the have to do is point to the words of their enemy. Zawahiri ?See, even the Americans admit that they are engaged in an illegal war and are committing acts of illegal torture on out brothers as we speak.? Get it?

 

[Aisengard]

Except, ProfJohn, if we weren't in this mess to begin with, those statements would not have to be made. Chicken-and-egg. And the fact that Bush supports the repression of free speech (he even represses it himself, calling all his criticizers traitors and cowards) is disgusting.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Bwahahahahahaha! You really crack me up, John. Iraq-Al Queda agreement? Hahahahaha!

You know what they call that in politics! A joke!

Laugh all you want but that a Clinton era statement. Do some research on why they chose to bomb that factory and you will see that the Clinton administration believed it was being used for chemical weapons research and that Iraq and al-Qaeda were working together on that process. From the 9-11 report.

The CIA reported that a soil sample from the vicinity of the al Shifa plant had tested positive for EMPTA, a precursor chemical for VX, a nerve gas whose lone use was for mass killing. Two days before the embassy bombings, Clarke?s staff wrote that Bin Ladin ?has invested in and almost certainly has access to VX produced at a plant in Sudan.?
Senior State Department officials believed that they had received a similar verdict independently, though they and Clarke?s staff were probably relying on the same report. Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director responsible for intelligence programs, initially cautioned Berger that the ?bottom line? was that ?we will need much better intelligence on this facility before we seriously
consider any options.? She added that the link between Bin Ladin and al Shifa was ?rather uncertain at this point.? Berger has told us that he thought about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa, and nerve
gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later.

Wow read the last line... could it be that the attack on the al Shifa plant was a preemptive strike? Who would have thought the Clinton's could do such a thing.
BTW: is that the best you can do to refute my post? Pick out one line and ignore all the other connections Saddam had to terror?

 

[Rainsford]

I love the conservative mindset here, it's truly amusing...and it explains a lot about their general outlook on "the truth". If I understand things here, the point is that your views should be totally controlled by who ELSE holds even vaguely similar views. If your view is at all shared by people you don't like, your view must be wrong, it makes no difference why you held it in the first place. If a terrorist says that the sky is blue, if YOU hold the view that the sky is blue, you are a traitor. But it doesn't even have to be that specific, you aren't allowed to agree even on generalities, even when your motivations for holding the view are totally different. If terrorists are against torture because, let's face it, who wants to be tortured, and YOU are against it because you think it goes against what we stand for and is unnecessary to fight terrorism, in the right wing mind, you hold the EXACT same view as the terrorists and should be treated as a traitor. Is that about the size of it?

Personally I find this very revealing of the "thought process" of our friends on the right. To them, truth and facts are very fluid, they really are just props for political argument. The idea that facts are facts and that the truth of a statement doesn't change whether it's George Bush or Michael Moore or Osama bin Laden saying it is a totally alien idea. And if you ask me, that's pretty damn scary...we're talking about people who have totally abandoned the reality based community in favor of their own make-believe reality.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
:roll: What you said is the definition of "traitor".

Sand, it is all about semantics.
On the war in Iraq
Saying ?I oppose the Iraq war because it distracted us from the real threat which is al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? is good
Saying ?Our criminal attack on Iraq was a tremendous evil and a blunder of stupendous proportions. This war has done sever and perhaps irreparable damage to the United States. The cost for this war should be the extinction of the Republican party as a political force in America. No party has ever been so deeply destructive to our nation. It is no wonder they try to call everybody who thinks differently than they treasonous. They know who they are. The Republican party might as well be an Al Quaeda cell.? is bad. BTW, this is an actual quote off a member of this forum, identify him and get a

On torture
Saying ?I don?t think that as Americans we should be using harsh interrogation techniques and that as a country we have to hold our selves to a higher standard of behavior? is good.
Saying ?I think prisoners were being treated worse than that here. You are fools to think the US military don't regularly torture people.? And ?Good point, but common sense and collected arguments don't matter to those biased to defend criminal military policy no matter how much you tell them.? is bad. Note that this posters is implying that the military regularly engages in torture and has a ?criminal military policy?

On the detention of terrorists
Saying ?We need to create a system that provides those captured on the battle field a fair and legal method of proving their innocence in keeping with our national and legal traditions.? Is good
Saying ?The people currently classified as "enemy combatants" and denied their basic human rights have not a shred of evidence against them, and yet they don't even have the right to challenge their imprisonment. Most of these people are probably innocent of any crime, and are being tortured for information they do not have and punished for crimes that they did not commit. The "reprehensible consequences" are the utter breakdown of respect for human rights and dignity, and the anti-American sentiments that follow those actions. If you honestly think that we are justified in locking people away in inhuman living conditions for years on end without so much as telling them why they're being imprisoned, then I suggest you try it for a little, and see how necessary it is then.? Is bad? yet another direct quote from these boards.

One last thing, on your use of the word traitor I?ll give you another great quote from one of our own members ?Bolton is a criminal. He's a traitor against this nation's ideals and should be hanged.? I don?t think what I said compares to what that poster said.
When the radicals on these boards and in our country make these types of statements they make it that much easier for the terror leaders to convince their people that why they are saying is the truth, all the have to do is point to the words of their enemy. Zawahiri ?See, even the Americans admit that they are engaged in an illegal war and are committing acts of illegal torture on out brothers as we speak.? Get it?

If you feel that the opposition to how the Republicans are running the war on terror is too radical, you MIGHT want to look at your own party for at least part of the reason. Remember the post-9/11 period? People were VERY behind everything Bush was doing, and that continued for quite a while. But then doubts started cropping up, especially about invading Iraq. And almost immediatly, every single person who questioned the "war on terror" in any way, shape or form was labled a traitor by the right-wing. Fair enough, but that's not exactly a good way to encourage what you view as reasonable opposition. The extreme polarization of the issues was something BOTH sides worked very hard on, and you know it. You guys have been at least as unreasonable as the "traitors".

Don't think so? Look at this very thread, you use your "reasonable" examples as something you and your right-wing friends clearly dont' believe ANYONE is actually saying, it's obvious from the rhetoric that you think nearly everyone who opposes, for example, torture does so using your "bad" example. Even beyond this thread, I have yet to find a rightie who's view of anti-torture views can be summed up with your "good" example. Yet that is the view widely held by most of the people against torture, the extreme viewpoints are NOT the majority view, yet anyone expressing ANY view against torture risks being tarred with the same brush. Tell me you don't think that polarizes people...it's pretty hard to have a one-sided reasonable discussion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Bwahahahahahaha! You really crack me up, John. Iraq-Al Queda agreement? Hahahahaha!

You know what they call that in politics! A joke!

Laugh all you want but that a Clinton era statement. Do some research on why they chose to bomb that factory and you will see that the Clinton administration believed it was being used for chemical weapons research and that Iraq and al-Qaeda were working together on that process. From the 9-11 report.

The CIA reported that a soil sample from the vicinity of the al Shifa plant had tested positive for EMPTA, a precursor chemical for VX, a nerve gas whose lone use was for mass killing. Two days before the embassy bombings, Clarke?s staff wrote that Bin Ladin ?has invested in and almost certainly has access to VX produced at a plant in Sudan.?
Senior State Department officials believed that they had received a similar verdict independently, though they and Clarke?s staff were probably relying on the same report. Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director responsible for intelligence programs, initially cautioned Berger that the ?bottom line? was that ?we will need much better intelligence on this facility before we seriously
consider any options.? She added that the link between Bin Ladin and al Shifa was ?rather uncertain at this point.? Berger has told us that he thought about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa, and nerve
gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later.

Wow read the last line... could it be that the attack on the al Shifa plant was a preemptive strike? Who would have thought the Clinton's could do such a thing.
BTW: is that the best you can do to refute my post? Pick out one line and ignore all the other connections Saddam had to terror?

And on the following page we have:

Much public commentary turned immediately to scalding criticism that
the action was too aggressive. The Sudanese denied that al Shifa produced
nerve gas, and they allowed journalists to visit what was left of a seemingly
harmless facility. President Clinton,Vice President Gore, Berger,Tenet, and
Clarke insisted to us that their judgment was right, pointing to the soil sample
evidence. No independent evidence has emerged to corroborate the CIA?s
assessment.50