Bin Laden's Iraq Plan (Newsweek)

Newsweek ^ | 12/08/03 | Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh

[GOPJ]

Maybe he gives donations to selected liberal friends. Who knows, they do seem to have the same agenda.

So was bin Laden at the "Hate Bush" meeting too?

[veracious]

Over there and not over here.

This ought to be a major part of our countries message. Even if it isn't spoken often, all Americans should remember that we wan't this happening on their streets, not ours (like WTC New York).

[armymarinemom]

Not so sure about this article. It doesn't really match up to the rest of the reports out of that region. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the bad guys both in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't using the media for bad intelligence.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Diverting" means they don't have resources for both fronts.

Very good news, IMHO.

[Lael]

The charity money is drying up

OBL mastered the art of OPM [Other People's Money].

[Lael]

The charity money is drying up

OBL mastered the art of OPM [Other People's Money].

[samtheman]

Hey, Mullah, thanks for giving up your country to support me. It's been real. Astalavista, baby!

[oneoftheothers]

Someone has too much time on their hands dreaming -- this is all a bunch of mindless propaganda.

[oneoftheothers]

Someone has too much time on their hands dreaming -- this is all a bunch of mindless propaganda.

[GrandMoM]

We need a call for ALL patriotic Americans to stop buying these 2 magazines.....I never buy TIME OR NEWSWEEK, but I do block them while waiting in line at the cashiers. I pick up any other mag. and scan it for a minute, then put it back in the wrong place which just happens to be TIME or NEWSWEEK!!!!!!!!!

[Saints fan]

I don't find it addictive at all. I can leave whenever I want. I just don't want to for awhile. Maybe later. I think.

[xzins]

LOL!!

[Lael]

BTTT!!!

[steve-b]

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said.

[optimistically_conservative]

I think we should ask some important questions about the articles that come from inside terror cells from western media sources:

Why would an Arabic speaking anti-Western group show an interest in, go through the trouble required, and take the risk of, having "our" reporters at their meetings and photographing their attacks?

If the articles written by these groups are not translated, and assumable not read, by other Arabic speaking groups, what's the objective of these cells in having publicity in English media seen only in the West?

Can we assume that these cells are not doing this because of their high regard for freedom of the press? If not, are they being motivated to do this through bribes or other material support by the reporters in order to "gain access"? Or are these cells engaging in an intentional propaganda/PSYOPS effort targeting Western public opinion to win a war they cannot win on the battlefield? If the latter, are the Western media sources that not only willingly participate, but actively seek out participation, conspirators in the success of that propaganda campaign?

If they can be considered conspirators in that campaign, then should the deaths and injuries resulting from the attacks recorded (and arguably attacks conducted for the media to record) be attributed to the propaganda campaign and these willing accomplices? Can any material support provided, including quid pro quos and payment for services, be used by victims and their survivors to claim damages?

In other words, does the first amendment protect traitors and treasonous acts?

[xzins]

You raise an interesting point.

Would an american family be able to conduct a civil suit if they could connect a particular report with endangering and leading to the death of one of their loved ones?

[optimistically_conservative]

Would an american family be able to conduct a civil suit if they could connect a particular report with endangering and leading to the death of one of their loved ones?

Right, but not just an American family but Iraqis as well. And particularly victims and their survivors of clearly terrorist groups that target attacks against civilians.

Terrorists without media coverage go out of business. Media companies that further terrorism's goals should also.

[P-Marlowe]

If the reporters or the news agencies gave money to these people in order to be given access for their reports then there is no doubt that they would be guilty of treason. Treason is defined as giving AID and comfort to the enemies of the United States of America. To provide even one penny to people who are actively engaged in a war with American Troops is a treasonous act.

The Constitution specifically states that the penalty for such an act should be death. It is time we find out whether there are American citizens giving direct financial aid or payments for access to these terrorists, and if so, we should try them and execute them quickly as an example to others who might be so inclined.

[xzins]

If the family were to discover that the reporter's access led to the death of their loved one, could they file a civil suit.

NOT for violation of speech BUT for reckless endangerment?

[optimistically_conservative]

It would seem to me that it would be fairly easy to run a sting in Iraq looking for journalists that would pay for access to cover an attack, or would receive payments or "gifts", to provide such coverage.

I seem to remember stories here of journalists accepting Rolex watches and such excusing it as customary for that region. And CNN's intentional burying of unfavorable reports about Saddam's regime comes to mind.