Posted on 03/05/2005 8:10:03 AM PST by aculeus
DCI Porter Goss's testimony before Congress on February 16 that Soviet nuclear material could be in al-Qaeda's hands is a troubling coda to speeches by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in late 2004. Bin Laden's October 30 speech was treated by the media as an attempt to influence the election. Most post-speech commentary also claimed the speech moved bin Laden away from war and toward political discourse. That the speech was directed to the American people is clear. What received little notice, however, is that the speech - and Zawahiri's in November 2004 - completed a cycle of statements warning Americans, and preparing the Muslim world, for an al-Qaeda attack more severe than 9/11.
After 9/11, bin Laden received sharp criticisms from Islamist scholars that dealt with the al-Qaeda chief's failure to satisfy several religious requirements pertinent to waging war. The critique focused on three items: (1) insufficient warning; (2) failure to offer Americans a chance to convert to Islam; and (3) inadequate religious authorization to kill so many people. Bin Laden accepted these criticisms and in mid-2002 began a series of speeches and actions to remedy the shortcomings and satisfy his Islamist critics before again attacking in the United States.
Bin Laden devoted most attention to warning Americans that, to prevent another 9/11-type attack, they had to elect leaders who would change U.S. policies toward the Islamic world. He focused especially on the U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and Afghanistan, unqualified support for Israel, as well as support for Muslim tyrannies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Animosity toward these policies had long been a staple of bin Laden's statements, but since 2002 he has spoken directly to Americans about what they - not their leaders - must do to avoid another attack.
In America's democratic system, bin Laden said, U.S. leaders are elected by the people and stay in office only if the people support their policies. Arguing that the U.S. policies perceived by Muslims as attacks on Islam have been in place for decades, bin Laden said it is clear that the American people as a whole approve of anti-Islamic policies. "The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change their Government," bin Laden said in October 2002, "yet time and again polls show that the American people support the policies of the elected Government." On this basis, bin Laden warned Americans on four occasions between mid-2002 and October 2004 that they would be responsible for any military disaster that befell them if they did not elect leaders who would change the policy status quo. Indeed, bin Laden's speech of 30 October 2004 appears to be an exceptionally explicit warning. It was largely devoid of the religious and historical allusions usually present in his speeches, as if he wanted to ensure that translators would get his warning to Americans quickly and clearly. (Al-Jazeera, 30 October, 12 Nov 02; Waaqiah.com, 26 Oct 02)
Parallel to the warnings, bin Laden on two occasions since 2002 asked Americans to convert to Islam as the means of terminating the war al-Qaeda is waging against the United States. "We call you to Islam," bin Laden said on both occasions, addressing himself to President Bush - as the leader of the American people - and asking him to lead his countrymen to Islam. He also offered to serve as guide and teacher for the American people, urging them to "follow the right path" to Islam. "I am an honest adviser to you." bin Laden concluded, "I urge you to seek the joy of life and the after life.... I urge you to become Muslims...." (Al-Jazeera 6 Oct 02; Waaqiah.com, 26 Oct 02)
To remedy the criticism of inadequate religious authorization for mass American casualties, bin Laden received the necessary sanction from a young, radical Saudi Shaykh named Hamid bin al-Fahd. In May 2003, al-Fahd published a fatwa on his website entitled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." (FBIS, May 23 2003) In this lengthy work, al-Fahd affirmatively answered the question of whether it was permissible under the four schools of Sunni Islam for the mujahideen to use nuclear weapons against the United States. Bin al-Fahd concluded that each school did permit the use of such weapons and that the mujahideen would be justified in inflicting millions of casualties in the United States. "Anyone who considers America's aggression against Muslims and their lands during the last decade," al-Fahd maintained, "will conclude that striking her is permissible merely on the rule of treating one as one has been treated. Some brothers have totaled the number of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by their [America's] weapons and come up with the figure of nearly ten million."
Thus, when bin Laden spoke to Americans in October 2004, he was tying up loose ends leftover from 9/11 and telling Americans again that changing the "policy of the White House ... [is] the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan...." (Al-Jazeera 30 Oct 04) By then he had repeatedly warned Americans that al-Qaeda would attack unless U.S. policies were changed. Strange and even comic sounding to American and Western ears, bin Laden's warnings and invitation to conversion are meant to satisfy Islamic scholars, and Muslims generally, that al-Qaeda has abided by the Prophet Muhammad's instructions of offering a warning to the enemy before launching an attack. Likewise, Shaykh al-Fahd's treatise attempts to overcome the lack of religious grounding for mass casualties for which Islamic scholars criticized the 9/11 attack, and will be used by bin Laden as such after his next attack against the United States.
In this overall context, the November 28 2004 speech by deputy al-Qaeda chief Zawahiri seems to have brought closure to the warning cycle begun by bin Laden in 2002. In his speech, Zawahiri spoke more in sorrow than anger when he gave Americans "a final piece of advice." He said that Americans had again elected leaders who would keep the status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world. Noting that al-Qaeda had repeatedly warned against this course of action, Zawahiri implied that Americans would get no more warnings and that they would have only themselves to blame for future disasters. "The results of your elections don't concern us," Zawahiri said about the policy status quo, "What matters to us is the way in which the United States behaves toward Muslims." (AFP, 30 November 2004)
Since November 2004, Zawahiri and bin Laden each have made two statements. They focused on Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the continuing threat of "The Crusaders"; none warned Americans or even specifically addressed the United States. These recent statements mirror the non-specific statements that were issued by bin Laden and Zawahiri before earlier attacks -such as 9/11 (2001), The USS Cole (2000), and the East Africa Embassy bombings (1998)- and suggest that bin Laden believes he has satisfied his post-9/11 critics. If Zawahiri's November 28 speech did conclude al-Qaeda's warning cycle, it probably means the group is ready to attack in the United States, a situation that makes DCI Goss's statement that Soviet nuclear materials may be held by al-Qaeda all the more troubling.
Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.
The President should have a news conference from a missle silo and announce that this and other US nuclear assets have been retargeted against terrorist elements as well as the cities of Mecca and Medina. Any WMD attack on the US by Islamic terrorists will be met by a nuclear responce. With the Kabaa as ground zero maybe a few Muslims might think twice.
"The analysis in this article seems a bit stretched..."
This is written by the ridiculous Michael Scheuer aka "Anonymous" who is arguably the person chiefly responsible for our failure to capture or kill Bin Laden, as he was in charge of so doing. A recent review of his book reveals his analysis and prescriptions to be self-contradictory and hysterical. Basically he can't make up his mind whether we should just KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS -or-SUBMIT TO THEIR REASONABLE DEMANDS. Notably, he warns that we must abandon our support for Israel, and asserts the anti-Semitic canard that the American nation is "controlled" by Israel. His thinking is a toxic mixture and it is disturbing to think that a person like this held a high post in our national security apparatus.
Porter Goss never said nuclear material could be in al-Qaeda's hands. Goss said he could not assure the American people that the missing nuclear material had not found its way into terrorists' hands.
It was FBI Director Robert Mueller who confirmed new intelligence which suggests al Qaeda is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
It's good to have you back! I've missed you, and I know I'm not alone!
Welcome, pard!
OK. Was this a response to anything I said? My attack was on the writer's logic and argument, not whether an attack is truly immanent or not. In an open, free society, the timing of an attack is left mostly to the attacker. Which is why the sooner Iraq, Syria, Saudi, and North Korea have new leadership, the better.
With as close as the election was against a weak candidate like John Kerry, FReepers should bear no illusions; she would very hard to beat.
True, but that would hurt Muslims' feelings, and show that we don't prize diversity, and well, it would be hateful. We can't do that. A far better option would be for the U.S. to unilaterally disarm, then raise our taxes for a special lockbox fund used only to build new mosques. We could begin hearings on redrafting the constitution so as to allow state religion, then institute Islam. Don't worry, they wouldn't be able to make you believe, so long as you prayed in an eastward direction five times a day. And on the bright side, American feminists would learn how good they had it. I'm sure if the rational, stable-minded bin ladin and associates saw this genuine effort, they would finally like us. And that is what is truly important.
"Arguing that the U.S. policies perceived by Muslims as attacks on Islam have been in place for decades, bin Laden said it is clear that the American people as a whole approve of anti-Islamic policies."
I am tired of this reasoning. Bin Laden knows that the only reason Islam is a problem for the U.S. is because their governments do not separate church and state. They are one in the same. He plays on this to create the impression that it is a war on Islam. Unfortunately, his rhetoric is believed by radical Islamists and actually does foster anti-Moslem views in this country.
Obviously, Americans are not going to convert to Islam en masse and most are becoming very weary of his propaganda.
Have you read the book? It is very good.
Bloggers commenting on this article:
http://wordunheard.blogspot.com/2005/03/al-qaeda-warning-cycle-complete.html
and (scroll down):
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/archives/2005/03/our_schemes_and.html
Complete security is IMPOSSIBLE and can not be achieved any more than bringing our country's murder rate to ZERO.
IMO it is only a matter of time before "something" happens.
No, I won't give a penny to this guy. He's exactly the type that needed to be cleaned out of the CIA. Everything is the fault of the Jooz. U.S. Policy bad. Osama good.
More likely, the warnings are in lieu of any actual ability to attack.
"Our enemies are patient. I'm convinced that they are just biding their time before the next hit. Our southern border has been wide open for a long time leading me to believe that the cells are in place; however, it could be years before another major hit."
I agree with you here, one thing we are overlooking is the northern border also. Who knows how many trickled in through Canada in the past decade or so. I consider it just as porous as the south.
As many of us know, there is usually a 60 day timeline from an Osama speech and an attack. Something isn't right because 60 days has passed with a few speeches, I feel they are gearing up for something big and it's just a matter of time. Unfortunately I don't see any cells being infiltrated or plans being thwarted in the MSM whatsoever to lead me to believe otherwise.
My two cents,
-skeggs
Unless the cops also have full on MOPP (Mission Oriented Protective Posture) suits along with rubber booties and butyl rubber gloves AND have been trained to don them within 30 seconds, this is a worthless panacea designed to reassure rather than ensure survival. Have the cops been issued ATROPINE self injectors? This is meaningless.
I have been warning in print for well over ten years that this country, in the spring and summer months is RIPE for a chemical attack. But the nerve agent family, among the deadliest substances known to man uses multiple portals of entry into the body besides the lungs. This stuff can absorb thru the skin and in it's pure form you'll be just as dead in a little over 9 seconds. But that brief period of time will seem like hours as you barf up your lungs and your convulsions break your own bones in their utter violence. NASTY WAY TO DIE.
Good point about the northern border skeggsaw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.