Bin Laden May Be Trying to Reassert Power

[warpedskydiver 0]

Bin Laden May Be Trying to Reassert Power
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:26 AM EDT
The Associated Press
By JASPER MORTIMER

Listen to Audio

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The latest tape purportedly released by Osama bin Laden may be an attempt by the al-Qaida chief to regain his eminence in the global terror network and raise his profile overall after being sidelined by insurgents in Iraq, terrorism experts said Wednesday.

In an audio tape posted on the Internet late Tuesday, a speaker claiming to be bin Laden said that neither Zacarias Moussaoui — the only person convicted in the United States for the Sept. 11 attacks — nor anyone held at Guantanamo had anything to do with the al-Qaida operation.

"I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 men who hijacked the four aircraft used in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Two counterterrorism officials in Washington, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said U.S. intelligence is aware of the bin Laden message. One of the officials said there is no reason to doubt its authenticity.

If authentic, it would be the third tape that bin Laden has issued this year — a sharp increase in the volume of propaganda issued by al-Qaida since August, according to terror experts such as Ben Venzke, head of IntelCenter, a private U.S. company that monitors militant message traffic and provides counterterrorism intelligence services to the U.S. government.

"Al-Qaida messaging volume levels are at the highest now than at any point since the group's inception," Venzke said.

Rohan Gunaratna of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore said the increase in propaganda was apparently bin Laden's attempt to compensate for his group's loss of ability to mount attacks. The U.S.-led war on terror apparently has severely disrupted the portion of al-Qaida directly under bin Laden's control, he said.

That has allowed the head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to capture the spotlight on the world terrorism stage watched by militant sympathizers, Gunaratna told The Associated Press in a call from Singapore.

"The jihadis are increasingly looking to al-Zarqawi, who is on the ground and every day is killing Americans in Iraq," Gunaratna said. "Al-Zarqawi is stealing the thunder of bin Laden."

By stepping up his propaganda, Gunaratna said he believed "bin Laden is trying to maintain his eminence in the global jihad."

Moussaoui, a 37-year-old Frenchman and admitted al-Qaida member, was sentenced to life in prison earlier this month after a jury in the United States ruled that he was responsible for at least one death on Sept. 11.

On the tape, bin Laden said to Americans: "Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed."

Bin Laden said Moussaoui's confession of involvement in Sept. 11 was "void," and the result of pressure during imprisonment.

"Brother Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and if he had known something — even very little — about the Sept. 11 group, we would have informed the leader of the operation, Mohammad Atta, and the others ... to leave America before being discovered," bin Laden said.

Bin Laden also said that none of the hundreds of terror suspects held at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks — and said most had no ties to al-Qaida.

"Our brothers in Guantanamo ... have no connection whatsoever to the events of Sept. 11," he said, claiming they were jailed to justify the cost of the war on terror.

But he did say two of the detainees were linked to the Sept. 11 attacks. "All the prisoners to date have no connection to the Sept. 11 events or knew anything about them, except for two of the brothers," bin Laden said. But he did not provide names or elaborate further.

The audio message, which is less than five minutes long, was transmitted with a still photo of bin Laden.

In a tape aired on Arab television in March, bin Laden denounced the United States and Europe for cutting off funds to the Hamas-led Palestinian government, accusing them of leading a "Zionist" war on Islam, and urged followers to fight any U.N. peacekeeping force in Sudan.

In January, bin Laden said in an audiotape that al-Qaida was preparing new attacks in the United States but offered a truce — though his lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahri later issued a video saying Washington had refused to take the offer.

OBL has also been busy telling other high ranking
al-Qaida that he has been smitten with a young American and that he hopes to oneday be his bitch.

Hi Clay!!!

I wonder if OBL and Zarqawi are going to fight it out in their man jammies over who gets to be "bitch"

[billvon 3,120]

Remember when he was our highest priority? Now he's in third behind new terror groups. Seems to bode poorly for the 'war on terror.'

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Remember when he was our highest priority? Now he's in third behind new terror groups. Seems to bode poorly for the 'war on terror.'

Not if you want to prolong it to use as a tool to further your agenda. Just think, if we hadn't left Afghanistan and actually pursued and caught this guy, do you think that our administration would have ever been able to talk anyone into backing the Iraq war? Not likely. So he's a good guy to have on the loose until there's a suitable replacement.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

…may be an attempt by the al-Qaida chief to regain his eminence in the global terror network and raise his profile overall after being sidelined by insurgents in Iraq,

So we defeat him by creating a more dangerous situation for ourselves than he represented?

I guess that's one way to do things... kinda like that old joke where you stamp on the foot of someone complaining of a headache and say - "doesn't hurt so bad now does it".

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Remember when he was our highest priority? Now he's in third behind new terror groups. Seems to bode poorly for the 'war on terror.'

So who are you the most afraid of now? N.Korea, Iran or Bin Laden?

[vortexring 0]

Or OPEC trading in euro's? The REAL threat to American stability!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Or OPEC trading in euro's? The REAL threat to American stability!

Yep. What do you think we should do about it?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Invade... er everyone...?

or buy Euros...

[billvon 3,120]

>So who are you the most afraid of now? N.Korea, Iran or Bin Laden?

I am most concerned about North Korea, since they actually have nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a lunatic for a leader. We should hunt down Bin Laden not because he's the biggest threat out there (although he is _a_ threat) but because he attacked the United States of America and killed 3000 of our citizens. I am amazed at how often people forget that.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>So who are you the most afraid of now? N.Korea, Iran or Bin Laden?

I am most concerned about North Korea, since they actually have nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a lunatic for a leader. We should hunt down Bin Laden not because he's the biggest threat out there (although he is _a_ threat) but because he attacked the United States of America and killed 3000 of our citizens. I am amazed at how often people forget that.

I don't diagree with you Bill, just pointing out that sometimes priorities change due to changing threats. It doesn't mean OBL isn't a priority. Just not as much of a threat as he was 4 years ago because of all the damage that has been done to AQ.

[shropshire 0]

<> NeoCons/PNAC

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>Just not as much of a threat as he was 4 years ago because of all
>the damage that has been done to AQ.

?? The number of Al Qaeda attacks are increasing, and the organization is becoming larger through the new recruits it finds in Iraq. It's not that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat; indeed, they are a greater threat now than they were in 2000. We just have much larger threats now, due to our involvement in Iraq. (Iraqi insurgents kill far more US citizens than Al-Qaeda, for example.)

But I agree that Bin Laden himself is no longer as much of a threat since he cannot operate as openly.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

<> NeoCons/PNAC

Did you know "They" are tapping your phone?

[shropshire 0]

I'm wireless and piggy backing off someone elses router... So if the cops turn up down the road.... I'll pretend to be out.

But seriously, extremists from ALL sides are the real problem. I dont know how, but maybe the silent majority should become more vocal. It's no good saying stuff like vote them out, because you can only do that at prescribed times (gouverned by them) and the extremists from the other side, were never voted in, in the first place.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I'm wireless and piggy backing off someone elses router... So if the cops turn up down the road.... I'll pretend to be out.

But seriously, extremists from ALL sides are the real problem. I dont know how, but maybe the silent majority should become more vocal. It's no good saying stuff like vote them out, because you can only do that at prescribed times (gouverned by them) and the extremists from the other side, were never voted in, in the first place.

.

I agree with you. I'm pretty pissed off about a lot of things going on right now too. The Dems won't be any better so that's not the solution either. This year may be the year for a 3rd Party, although I haven't found one yet that reflects my views or that I think has much of a chance of winning, but I'm still taking a look at 2 or 3 of them. My guess is a real Leader must emerge from one of the 2 we have now, but I haven't seen that person yet.

[shropshire 0]

Maybe that's the problem with modern multi-party states... They are all so intent on winning support (from the middle ground) that, in the main, the actually sound like they have the same policies.

Over here, in the old days, you could tell the difference between the Labour Party and the Convervatives.. Not now.

Now we vote for the party, who's policies we do not fully agree with, but for a basket of polies that we tend to support... If you try to vote on traditional party values, you get kicked in the teeth by their New Improoved values.

Maybe it's time for us to stop voting for whole parties, but voting for individual policies... one from here.... one from there, the best in our own views at the time.


Thoughts?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>So who are you the most afraid of now? N.Korea, Iran or Bin Laden?

I am most concerned about North Korea, since they actually have nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a lunatic for a leader. We should hunt down Bin Laden not because he's the biggest threat out there (although he is _a_ threat) but because he attacked the United States of America and killed 3000 of our citizens. I am amazed at how often people forget that.

I don't diagree with you Bill, just pointing out that sometimes priorities change due to changing threats. It doesn't mean OBL isn't a priority. Just not as much of a threat as he was 4 years ago because of all the damage that has been done to AQ.

Don't forget that the supposed threat that was Iraq turned out not to be a threat at all, yet it distracted us (and continues to distract us) from real threats.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>So who are you the most afraid of now? N.Korea, Iran or Bin Laden?

I am most concerned about North Korea, since they actually have nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a lunatic for a leader. We should hunt down Bin Laden not because he's the biggest threat out there (although he is _a_ threat) but because he attacked the United States of America and killed 3000 of our citizens. I am amazed at how often people forget that.

I don't diagree with you Bill, just pointing out that sometimes priorities change due to changing threats. It doesn't mean OBL isn't a priority. Just not as much of a threat as he was 4 years ago because of all the damage that has been done to AQ.

Don't forget that the supposed threat that was Iraq turned out not to be a threat at all, yet it distracted us (and continues to distract us) from real threats.

What real threats do you think we are distracted from?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Or OPEC trading in euro's? The REAL threat to American stability!

Yep. What do you think we should do about it?

2 obvious options; invade Iran or negotiate a single currency monetary system. The $ can't stay the worlds reserve currency forever - especially with the U.S's unilateral approach to world affairs. Generating loads of international support here, eh?

So it's a case of accepting either lesser economic dominance or enforcing economic dominance.

Unilateralism - not good.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Maybe that's the problem with modern multi-party states... They are all so intent on winning support (from the middle ground) that, in the main, the actually sound like they have the same policies.

Over here, in the old days, you could tell the difference between the Labour Party and the Convervatives.. Not now.

Now we vote for the party, who's policies we do not fully agree with, but for a basket of polies that we tend to support... If you try to vote on traditional party values, you get kicked in the teeth by their New Improoved values.

Maybe it's time for us to stop voting for whole parties, but voting for individual policies... one from here.... one from there, the best in our own views at the time.


Thoughts?

It's pretty much like that here, too.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>So who are you the most afraid of now? N.Korea, Iran or Bin Laden?

I am most concerned about North Korea, since they actually have nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and a lunatic for a leader. We should hunt down Bin Laden not because he's the biggest threat out there (although he is _a_ threat) but because he attacked the United States of America and killed 3000 of our citizens. I am amazed at how often people forget that.

I don't diagree with you Bill, just pointing out that sometimes priorities change due to changing threats. It doesn't mean OBL isn't a priority. Just not as much of a threat as he was 4 years ago because of all the damage that has been done to AQ.

Don't forget that the supposed threat that was Iraq turned out not to be a threat at all, yet it distracted us (and continues to distract us) from real threats.

What real threats do you think we are distracted from?

Climate change. Crushing debt.

And our fearless leader would add terrorism.

However, even that is over-rated IMO. My airplane insurance is $1430 per year WITHOUT terrorism coverage, and $1440 WITH terrorism coverage, so the insurance company, whose job it is to assess risk, apparently doesn't reckon terrorism is much of a threat to me and my plane.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.