Osama bin Laden is back at helm of al Qaeda...

[Guest Downhome]

This is interesting, and a bit shocking to me...

 

Bin Laden Reportedly Back at Helm of al Qaeda

 

Tue Aug 27,10:12 AM ET

By Michael Georgy

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden is firmly back in command of al Qaeda and the group is digging in for guerrilla attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan, an Arab journalist with close ties to the militant's associates said on Tuesday.

 

Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based daily al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, said al Qaeda associates recently told him the network had regained confidence after facing intense U.S. bombing and was ready to fight U.S. troops over the long haul.

 

"Al Qaeda were shattered during the U.S. bombing so it was difficult for bin Laden to stay in control. Now they said he is fully in command again and they have regrouped and are organized again," Atwan told Reuters.

 

"Al Qaeda people say they are relaxed now and they will fight a war of attrition against U.S. soldiers," added Atwan, who interviewed bin Laden in 1996 and keeps in contact with his associates and followers.

 

Bin Laden was in good health and "safe" and was planning new attacks on the United States, he was told, but his whereabouts were not disclosed.

 

The United States launched strikes on Afghanistan last year to flush out al Qaeda and hunt down bin Laden, its prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, and punish the Taliban regime that protected him.

 

But remnants of al Qaeda and their Taliban allies have continually frustrated the U.S.-led coalition by hiding in mountains, melting into the local population or fleeing into neighboring Pakistan or Iran.

 

Atwan said that the al Qaeda and Taliban had re-established links that were severed when the United States began its military campaign in Afghanistan.

 

"They are working together again. They are organizing," he said.

 

There is no trail, meanwhile, leading to bin Laden.

 

Bin Laden's associates told Atwan that the Saudi-born militant was well, "safe" and planning new attacks on the United States. They did not say where bin Laden was currently living.

 

"My sense is that he will time any new attack to coincide with a U.S. attack on Iraq. He would want to capitalize on this to appeal to the Arab street so he will probably delay any attacks until the United States moves on Iraq," said Atwan.

 

"He will probably want to be seen as the only Arab standing up to the United States when the United States attacks Iraq."

 

Bin Laden made a series of defiant videotapes broadcast on television as U.S. warplanes pounded Afghanistan. But he has recently stayed out of sight.

 

His associates said Bin Laden, who has a $25 million U.S. bounty on his head, was well protected but his entourage was small in order to avoid capture, said Atwan.

 

"He is the master of disguise and he is making sure that he is not giving anything away so he travels in a small group," he said.

 

Bin Laden's top aide Ayman al-Zawahri, the Egyptian-born chief strategist of al Qaeda, was with him along with a small group of militant bodyguards, Atwan was told.

 

...hmmm, I wonder what this means in the bigger picture, and if this could fuel the fire of claiming that Sadam and Ladden are somehow working together. Whatever the case, this is some interesting news, at least in my opinion.

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest Ozymandias]

digging in for guerrilla attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan

 

 

Hey, this falls under the banner of self-defense in this case. 'Tis a shame when the US is making it so this maniac is actually fighting against evil.

 

*sigh*

[Guest J*ingus]

How is it self-defense? They attacked us, we attacked back, but still haven't gotten a few of the big fish like Bin Laden, so we're still over there.

 

Also, to what extend could Al Quaeda reorganize in the first place? We killed a whole lot of those guys, and blew up quite a bit of their equipment.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Its ashame that they want to fight in Afghanistan and Bush wants to fight in Iraq.

[Guest Ozymandias]

How is it self-defense?

The "they" who attacked us died in the attack and there STILL is no legit evidence regarding Bin Laden having involvement even though it's been almost ONE YEAR. Face it, the guy wasn't involved - if he was there is NO WAY that some kind of concrete connection (the killers being satellite Al Qaeda members isn't good enough) wouldn't have come to light by now.

 

Afghanistan didn't attack us, and there is ZERO evidence they had any involvement in 9/11 - they have been attacked so anything they do to our troops over there is 100% justified.

 

 

Marvin: In all fairness, I wouldn't consider hurling bombs from the sky like fucking cowards to be "fighting".

[Guest redbaron51]

i couldn't care less about Bin Ladin or Hussain anymore, but really what are the american's going to do if only one other country thinks its allright to "Invade" Iraq, when really "Invade" means bomb the living shit out of them.

 

Until USA gets more support from other nations, then there is no point to "Invade" them. If Iraq are invading...or doing some stuff literally, not just this "posing a threat" crap, you need a little more proof

[Guest DrTom]

The "they" who attacked us died in the attack and there STILL is no legit evidence regarding Bin Laden having involvement even though it's been almost ONE YEAR.

What do you expect bin Laden to do, march up and down the streets of New York, waving an "I'm guilty!" banner? Come on, how much more evidence do you need? The man's been involved in the original WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings, the Cole attack, the 2001 WTC attacks, and the Pentagon attack. There's ample evidence against him specifically, as well as the rest of his group. This information has been gathered by both US and worldwide intelligence organizations. I'm sure there are security reasons that are preventing a lot of it from being released to the public, which I can understand.

 

the killers being satellite Al Qaeda members isn't good enough

It's not? Isn't Al'Qaeda his organization? In the military, isn't a commander responsible for the actions of the men under his command? Why would different thinking apply to a group like Al'Qaeda? Considering that bin Laden has taken credit for the attacks, I think his guilt is pretty clear.

 

Afghanistan didn't attack us, and there is ZERO evidence they had any involvement in 9/11

They were willingly harboring the terrorists who attacked this country, and they refused to cooperate with us. We gave them chances, and the refused. Their doom was brought on by their own choices.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Come on, how much more evidence do you need?

Well, any evidence whatsoever would be a nice start. "More" implies that there is any to begin with. The U.S. government simply saying "Oh, we have evidence on him alright. Don't you worry, evidence is what we have." doesn't cut it because all it is is heresay and rumor and you don't start a "war" with an unequipped, poverty-stricken nation over such a weak thing.

 

Isn't Al'Qaeda his organization? In the military, isn't a commander responsible for the actions of the men under his command?

 

If a Christian Coalition member bombs an abortion clinic, that doesn't make the Coalition guilty of involvement just because he happened to be a member and share core ideals and values with them. This situation isn't much different. The fact that they were on the same side of Bin Laden is NO proof that he had any specific prior knowledge of the attacks.

 

Considering that bin Laden has taken credit for the attacks, I think his guilt is pretty clear.

 

What about the 6,500 people who have taken credit for the assassination of John F. Kennedy over the past 39 years? Is their 'guilt pretty clear'?

 

They were willingly harboring the terrorists who attacked this country, and they refused to cooperate with us. We gave them chances, and the refused. Their doom was brought on by their own choices.

 

Afghanistan didn't "cooperate" with us because we didn't provide any evidence that Bin Laden was guilty of the attacks. We didn't provide any becuase we didn't HAVE any. We still don't.

You can't just TELL a country to turn out one of its own citizens and expect them to do so, they don't have to and refusing to do so certainly doesn't make them deserving of an act of small-scale genocide.

[Guest J*ingus]

If a Christian Coalition member bombs an abortion clinic, that doesn't make the Coalition guilty of involvement just because he happened to be a member and share core ideals and values with them. This situation isn't much different. The fact that they were on the same side of Bin Laden is NO proof that he had any specific prior knowledge of the attacks.

That's a faulty metaphor. To fit, you'd have to say "if nineteen Christian Coalition members bomb four separate abortion clinics at the same time and the group's leader takes credit for the attacks, that doesn't make the Coalition guilty of involvement". Which of course is obviously false.

 

Fact #1: the terrorists on the planes were members of Al Qaeda.

 

Fact #2: Osama Bin Laden is the leader of Al Qaeda.

 

Fact #3: Bin Laden has publicly stated that he was behind the attacks.

 

How much more do you need?

[Guest Ozymandias]

He took credit for it AFTER THE FACT. People take credit for terrorist attacks all the time to boost their esteem in the eyes of followers.

 

It doesn't matter how many Al Qaeda members were involved because there is STILL zero proof that the AQ leadership itself was involved.

 

You can't go into a court-room and say, "Oh COME ON, he HAD to be in on it!! Why? Because, that's why". Our government should be held to no lower standards when it's obvious that there is no legit proof after ELEVEN months.

 

You said what "more" do I need, but there hasn't been any legit proof to begin with. It's just a matter of people starting at the assumption that Bin Laden is guilty and filling in the missing parts themselves. When in reality there isn't an ounce of real evidence yet (but plenty of "evidence"), and after almost 1 year its safe to say that there never will be.

 

Face it, he probably wasn't involved.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

He took credit for it AFTER THE FACT. People take credit for terrorist attacks all the time to boost their esteem in the eyes of followers.

Since subterfuge is such an important element in terrorism, 99% of attacks are claimed "after the fact."

 

If you want to claim to kill almost 3,000 people, then you should be captured and investigated.

[Guest J*ingus]

Oh COME ON, he HAD to be in on it!! Why?

Because he CONFESSED, that's why. That, combine with the fact that the attacks were carried out by his own men, and that he's a habitual terrorist who has masterminded several other incidents around the world, should be enough for any court of law in the world.

[Guest Ozymandias]

I didn't mean that (operating under the possibilty he had no involvement and was just taking credit for the PR boost amongst his followers) it was an acceptable thing of him to do that - just that it didn't necessarily mean that he was really involved.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Because he CONFESSED, that's why.  That, combine with the fact that the attacks were carried out by his own men, and that he's a habitual terrorist who has masterminded several other incidents around the world, should be enough for any court of law in the world.

Perhaps in China, or - ironically - the Middle East, but no American court would be able to convict based on such "evidence". If they did it would completely fly in the face of the "Innocent until proven guilty" ideals our whole justice system is SUPPOSED to represent.

 

Is it that hard to believe that it was possible for a small group to get together and planned this themselves WITHOUT his knowledge? No, in fact it's very possible - and there's been no evidence to suggest that anything else happened.

[Guest TJH]

Osama being involved is the only picture that really fits, as well as the fact he admitted it and the gov't cannot release some evidence.

I have been (pleasantly) surprised there have been no more attacks, but unfortunately I just feel it is a matter of time.

[Guest J*ingus]

(sigh)

 

Let's go through all of it ONE more time.

 

1. Osama Bin Laden is a known terrorist, with several different violent attacks on the United States attributed to him and/or his underlings.

 

2. The men who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were all members of Al Qaeda.

 

3. Osama is the leader of Al Qaeda.

 

4. In several videotape releases, Osama claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks.

 

5. I doubt that the American military would invade the politically useless state of Afghanistan (there's NOTHING there worth having) if they knew that the Afghan-based Al Qaeda weren't behind the attacks.

 

So you've got a confession, a motive, a clear M.O., and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence as well. If it wasn't Al Qaeda, then who was it?

[Guest J*ingus]

Is it that hard to believe that it was possible for a small group to get together and planned this themselves WITHOUT his knowledge? No, in fact it's very possible - and there's been no evidence to suggest that anything else happened.

It's possible, sure. Likely? Hell no. For one thing, all of these guys were poor young nobodies; where would they get their funding and intelligence if they didn't have someone else leading them? And even if they could somehow conjure money and detailed information out of thin air, why would they bother to plan such an operation in secret and not tell their superiors (whom they're fanatically devoted to), especially when such a grandiose plan to deliver a knockout punch to the Great Satan would be met with overwhelming support?

[Guest TJH]

5. I doubt that the American military would invade the politically useless state of Afghanistan (there's NOTHING there worth having) if they knew that the Afghan-based Al Qaeda weren't behind the attacks.

Whoa, the U.S invaded Afghanistan "to build an oil pipeline".

[Guest Ozymandias]

If it wasn't Al Qaeda, then who was it?

It was the people invloved who died in the attacks as well as those who may have assisted them here, but there is STILL not an ounce of proof Bin Laden was amongst them.

 

The military is/was acting in the interests of the idiotic, blood-thirsty, racist American public who NEEDED to see more people die after 9/11. If George Bush's Son didn't do it then his career would have been over. It doesn't really matter what the military and the govenment thought - they were only taking orders from the voters.

[Guest Ozymandias]

And even if they could somehow conjure money and detailed information out of thin air, why would they bother to plan such an operation in secret and not tell their superiors (whom they're fanatically devoted to), especially when such a grandiose plan to deliver a knockout punch to the Great Satan would be met with overwhelming support?

Well now you're just splitting-hairs by trying to determine why homocidal psychopaths didn't behave more logically. Who knows, maybe they wanted to keep it quiet and simple, or MAYBE they were more concerned with succeeding than with such an risky, decadent move like informing somebody who was possibly under surveillance at the time. Remeber: they spent THE LAST YEAR OF THEIR LIVES planning this. the ONLY thing that mattered was for it to succeed. Plus, what exactly would the point of telling Bin Laden & Co. been? The killers were going to be credited and have their faces and names known once it was all over anyway.

[Guest Ozymandias]

The thing no one ever consider is: WHERE, pretell, are the follow-up attacks? It's been almost ONE YEAR and nothing else has happened. In other words, if Bin Laden was somehow able to pull off such an amazing attack from a cave in Afghanistan (!) then why hasn't he done anything else in the year since? If he could have SUCH an elaborate plan go off undetected and without a hitch, then wouldn't he have been able to do SOMETHING else?

 

So why didn't he? Probably because he wasn't a part of 9/11 and he was unable to pull off something so complicated from being isolated in an Afghanistan desert and having such a weak understanding of the culture of America itself.

 

BTW-This wasn't "his" M.O., all the other attacks that have been attributed to him were simple car-bombings that I probably could have pulled off were I willing (and crazy) enough. He's "done" NOTHING even remotely as sophisticated as 9/11 before.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

It was the people invloved who died in the attacks as well as those who may have assisted them here, but there is STILL not an ounce of proof Bin Laden was amongst them.

 

Go ask any lawyer. They will tell you than a confession is an incredibly strong arguement in a case.

 

As for how this lead to war, consider what happened. The Taliban would not hand over Osama for investigation, or a trial, or anything at all. They wouldn't let us go near him. The US said it was a matter of their national security, and the Taliban still refused to give custody of Bin Laden. We threatened to invade, they called our bluff, they paid the price.

 

The military is/was acting in the interests of the idiotic, blood-thirsty, racist American public who NEEDED to see more people die after 9/11.

 

Uhm.. The retaliation did not begin until after an entire month of squabbling.

 

If George Bush's Son didn't do it then his career would have been over.

 

If any President just shrugged his/her shoulders and said "Oh well, shit happens," their career would have been over.

 

what exactly would the point of telling Bin Laden & Co. been? The killers were going to be credited and have their faces and names known once it was all over anyway.

 

An event like 9/11 is far too complicated for a few lone people to plan all by themselves. The entire Al-Qaeda would need to be involved to plan out an entire morning like that.

 

if Bin Laden was somehow able to pull off such an amazing attack from a cave in Afghanistan (!) then why hasn't he done anything else in the year since? If he could have SUCH an elaborate plan go off undetected and without a hitch, then wouldn't he have been able to do SOMETHING else?

 

Because security has been at an all-time high for nearly an entire year. The government practically left their desks and fled in fear of the attacks, but they cannot afford to drop that ball again.

 

Besides, who's to say another plot isn't being thought up right now?

 

Probably because he wasn't a part of 9/11 and he was unable to pull off something so complicated from being isolated in an Afghanistan desert and having such a weak understanding of the culture of America itself.

 

Name to me what terrorist organization is more equipped to do such a thing? I have my doubts it was an enemy government such as Iraq, as they would have simply used missiles instead of airplanes. And don't give me that whole "The US Government planned it" thing, or else I'm going to have to hand out tinfoil hats.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

If it wasn't Al Qaeda, then who was it?

It was the people invloved who died in the attacks as well as those who may have assisted them here, but there is STILL not an ounce of proof Bin Laden was amongst them.

 

The military is/was acting in the interests of the idiotic, blood-thirsty, racist American public who NEEDED to see more people die after 9/11. If George Bush's Son didn't do it then his career would have been over. It doesn't really matter what the military and the govenment thought - they were only taking orders from the voters.

You really don't think Bin Laden planned and financed the attacks. Not everything is some grand conspiracy, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were the masterminds the evidence is overwhelming.

 

You hit the nail on the head. A good majority of Americans are racist.

 

Are you this much a whacko or are you just causing trouble?

[Guest DrTom]

The military is/was acting in the interests of the idiotic, blood-thirsty, racist American public who NEEDED to see more people die after 9/11.

It's called the need for revenge, and it's part of human nature. If you've transcended to a higher plane and are beyond the base emotions felt by those of us on this mortal coil, more power to you. Hell, I want to see the responsible countries obliterated, and I'll freely admit it. Hell yes, I'm a pissed-off American who wants to see my 3000 dead countrymen avenged in spades.

 

Had the English been attacked and acted in the same way the USA has, I would support their desire for revenge and justice. Bloodthirsty though the American public may be (which is understandable, as I think any people would be bloodthirsty under the same circumstances), there's nothing "idiotic" or "racist" about wanting revenge on our attackers.

[Guest DrTom]

In other words, if Bin Laden was somehow able to pull off such an amazing attack from a cave in Afghanistan (!) then why hasn't he done anything else in the year since?

Because he planned the original attacks from his very nice home in Afghanistan. He's only been in a cave since after the 9/11 attacks, when the US military was looking for him. Since then, a lot of his assets have been frozen and his organization has been scattered in the breeze. Those factors make repeat attacks difficult to pull off.

 

BTW, since you seem to think 20 people acted alone in bringing 9/11 about, wouldn't the lack of an attack since then prove bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda higher-ups were involved? Even though the group was scattered, some cells were still operational and could have acted independently, as you claim the 9/11 hijackers did. But if they relied on planning and funding from bin Laden and his chief cronies, then further attacks would have been almost impossible, as we've seen.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Personally, I think Bin Laden could have been involved, but it took a lot more than just his and a few cohorts, ideas to make this come about. There is something bigger here behind this, and it will eventually come out and be exposed.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Going back to the original topic.

 

This reporter got his info from Al Qaeda. Boy there's a reliable source. What exactly would Al Qaeda say, where fukked. It's simple propaganda.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

For the one-billionth time.........

 

*Osama Bin-Laden is a villain fabricated by the Bush administation and the media as a way of not flat out saying September 11th is the result of extreme Islamic practicing Muslims. Whether Bin-Laden was behind the attack or not ISN'T important, he is the head of the group who MADE the attack therfore he is responsible and should be dealth with in the same manner. It's just like when the ratings for the WWE go down, while it may be the fault of some wrestlers (Hogan, HHH, Taker) the writers and Vince receive the blame because they're the one's in charge and they're the one's orchestrating how the shows should be produced.

 

* America's war on terror isn't a war with Osama Bin-Laden. Again, he's merely a fabricated villain for the rubes in our society to focus on rather than Muslims in general. He's a bad dude that should be on the top of Bush's to-do list. This is a war against organizations and countries that pose threats to our country. Al Qaeda, terrorist organization Hamas (sp?), Iraq, North Korea and (in the future) China are foes of America and most of western civiliazation. That goes for all the fence riders in the U.K, Canada and France who think this war is JUST with the U.S and that they're somehow magically protected. A military operation in Iraq is HIGHLY neccessary because Saddam does pose a threat.

 

- People who think Bin-Laden was the be all and end all for 9/11 are crazy.

 

- People who STILL think Bin-Laden is an innocent man who had nothing to do with the attack are total morons who need to put down their "How to be a dumb ass, America hating, tree hugger" manuals and put the pieces of the puzzle together and stop making excuses for Islamic terror groups.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Quick clarification: I don't feel that Bin Laden ISN'T behind it, either. I honestly don't know. But neither do any of you and what I mean is that it's silly to just assume that he is guilty based on such paltry, circumstantial (at best) evidence. His NOT having any involvement is just as possible as the idea that he master-minded the whole thing. And it is certainly nothing that justifies attacking a defenseless country.

 

Vern: Go fuck yourself. I'm having a discussion with fellow posters, nobody here is trolling or causing trouble except for you.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

It's called the need for revenge, and it's part of human nature. If you've transcended to a higher plane and are beyond the base emotions felt by those of us on this mortal coil, more power to you. Hell, I want to see the responsible countries obliterated, and I'll freely admit it. Hell yes, I'm a pissed-off American who wants to see my 3000 dead countrymen avenged in spades.

First off, this is irresponsible warmongering, and is the reason why so many people in Europe would like to see Bush and those with similar mindsets out of the White House as soon as possible.

 

Second, Afghanistan and Irag have not attacked or declared war on America. A terrorist faction did. If The IRA decided to plant a bomb in New York to prove a point, would you bomb the crap out of the entirity of Ireland and murder innocents who had nothing to do with that attack in the first place?? Actually no, don't anser that.

 

If this thing in the Middle East escalates, and I believe it will, history will unequivocably record America as the aggressors. Whether your country's motivations are based on revenge, ideological conquest or simple paranoia, the world is turning on America's aggressive posturing fast, and you are becoming more and more dangerously isolated on the international stage.

 

Try to reel in the fists and think ahead a little, huh?