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.
Thank you a_d.
This is what we need.
Yes I need to vent here with my friends...but more important is information to arm ourselves intellectually
We here in our home have armed ourselves for the bleakness of islamic intentions toward us.
Jeff Head wrote yesterday in an un-related thread "Faith is an action word".
He is absolutely correct.
We have faith in our Lord Jesus.
Faith in our ability to defend ourselves against the evil of islam.
People are getting tired of the crap pouring through our borders.
There are some who may have 'blown off' 9/11 and 'forgotten'.
But I have a feeling, that if ANOTHER 9/11 type attack occurs, within our shores, there will be rivers of blood flowing. And I sincerely doubt that the panderers in DC will find enough people who will 'cover' their sorry asses!
Well, Bush may be following Bin Laden's advice, in that the tune from Muslim tyrannies in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt has changed since the Iraq election. But, there's always that translation problem, as I have always understood Islam itself to be a Muslim tyranny.
Thanks SheLion, I have the book and many others on this putrid subject.
But I must say it took a feisty gal from Maine to enlighten me about my own congresscritter.
When I called his office I told the woman 'everyone is onto Keller..I got the info about him from Maine'.
These people cannot hide anymore.
Thanks for the heads up on him!
Well I hope the president has warned Bin Laden if he hopes to be able to go to Mecca, he may want to think twice about killing millions of americans or maybe he doesnt care about killing millions of muslims .
It is an interesting question as to what the president would do if a nuclear blast wiped out a number of our major cities ,who would we retaliate against if anyone at all?
You are welcome. It's a hot topic for me.
I need to get a life. LOL!
It'll take me a few hours to drive it.
Y'all knock it off or get a room! ;-)
I have given that a lot of thought.
I don't think the opinion of our governmental agencies, and, therefore, law enforcement designated to carry out their wishes, would change.
I'd like to think that reprisals would be made and severe restrictions placed on the entire Muslim population, but I don't think it would happen.
I think any action taken by individual groups across the country would be viewed as vigilante movements, and the participants would be locked up or killed.
A good model is the opinion of governmental agencies toward the Minutemen Project on the Arizona border.
I'm not saying that would stop me; I'm just trying to face reality.
What are we gonna do with a room? Have phone sex?
A little comic relief from all this damn world depression business!
No, the better rooms have wireless now.
Besides, you like to drive that truck as far as you can!
Oh my goodness! I'm blushing! :)
She's probably never eaten any redneck wedding cake:
"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."
A minor difference that doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. If he could not assure us the material had not found its way into terrorist hands, this means Al Qaeda may have them.
Redneck wedding cake? LOL
Think about the authors points again. Al-Qaeda needs to have the Muslim world on it's side for it to survive right? If Bin Laden was truly criticized after 9/11 for not following Holy Law (Something OBL says he is following for justification to attack us) then he may submit to those criticisms visibly to keep the Muslims on his side and keep Al-Qaeda recruitment up. I think the whole thing is plausible if in fact he was criticized for not doing those 3 things prior to 9/11. That is the only part of the article that doesnt have footnotes as to where, when and whom critisized Bin Laden.
Yeah, they always serve those after redneck weddings:
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.