Posted on 09/11/2007 3:46:40 PM PDT by brityank
How do we even know that a live Bin Laden was doing the talking on that video? His beard would have had to have been dyed to go from the earlier mostly gray to the latest black. Do radical Islamists permit hair dying? And are hair dyes even available in the part of the world where he is supposed to be? It seems more likely that Bin Laden is dead - as has been speculated by for quite some time - and that his speaking image was created by electronic gimmicry. That would be consistent with the language used, which, as discussed in the article, could not have been prepared by the real Bin Ladin.
Those beliefs and traditions are what accounts for the primitive brutality of mohammed-worship, found wherever you find islam. Schwartz has not and will not honestly address those beliefs and traditions. You will not find him stating, for instance, that the notion of the koran as the literal word of allah is absurd, and needs to be defeated within the preceints of mohammed-worship.
Instead, he engages in a purported sympathy, which is a complete waste of time, unless you are interested in turning attention away from the central tenets.
Stephen Schwartz: walk into any of thousands of mosques in any number of dozens of countries - - any mosque - - in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, etc etc - - and proclaim that what happened on 9-11 requires the perpetrators to go to Hell.
You won't, because you know what true mohammed-worship is about. You would die. And because you do not believe the perpetrators of 9-11 will go to Hell.
Socialist are more honorable than this Dem leadership. The Dem party has been overrun with leftists and opportunists. The leftists have the furor of a fascist but lack the guts to call themselves communists. They do not really care whether we have health services with universal health-care. They just want the central government to control health-care.
My idea of an Exit Strategy for OBL: OBL kisses his rear good-bye!
Ping
I just heard that the latest tape has him spouting off about Madeleine Albright and troops in Saudi Arabia. That it is a photo still with his voiceover.
That tells me it is OLD, and he is dead.
Just my two copperheads.
Thanks for the PING, Brit.
From what I’ve gathered, it is not considered unusual for Muslim men to dye the Grey out of their beards. But some say that such dyeing is usually only done under specific circumstances. Personally, I know there is definitely something(s) not quite right about this video. But it is not just a straight unedited video of him being recorded within the last two months. This video is a doctored production.
I totally agree—the video is suspect. I know about the beard; that isn’t the part that bothers me, though it seems a lot fuller than his usual scraggly hair, so perhaps he had a hair transplant on his chin...;^)
The part that bothers me is the starts and stops of the first tape. He talks in sound-bites and not his usual fiery and flowery rhetoric to pump up his followers. All the current event stuff is done to a still. And the latest “video” is simply a still with his voiceover, where he complains about Madeleine Albright and troops in Saudi Arabia.
Ummm, Madeleine Albright? Am I missing something?
I loved it. Thanks so much for posting this!
bump
Stephen Schwartz is Sufi. I believe, it’s rare today but quite possible to be Sufi and not Muslim, at least not in the sense of “mainstream” Islam like Shi’a or Sunni.
It’s been a long time since I have seen or heard him interviewed or read any of his articles (same with Bernard Lewis) but, of course, he understands the Middle East regional and religious mindset far better than the ex-CIA “Imperial Hubris” charlatan Michael Scheuer whose prescription for “victory” and US “Arab policy” is consistently wrong.
Thank you for posting an excellent article.
Only about a decade or so.... (smirk)
Osama’s “honorable mention” of Michael Scheuer and Noam Chomsky in his “video” :
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200709/CUL20070911a.html
Bush the ‘Best Ally’ of Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Professor Says
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
September 11, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush is the “best ally” of Osama bin Laden and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky was quoted as telling one of Japan’s largest newspapers on Tuesday.
The newspaper, Mainichi Shimbun, published what it called an exclusive interview with Chomsky, to coincide with the sixth anniversary of al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on the United States.
In the interview, Chomsky argued that the Iraq war “significantly increased the threat of terror,” and he cited Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and author of the book “Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror,” as calling Bush bin Laden’s main ally.
Chomsky later added, “just as Bush is Osama Bin Laden’s best ally, he is also Ahmadinejad’s best ally.” Washington’s “threats” against Iran had the anticipated effect of making the Iranian government “more harsh and verbal,” he said.
The interview was published four days after al-Qaeda released a video message from bin Laden in which the fugitive terrorist approvingly cited both Chomsky and Scheuer.
“This war [in Iraq] was entirely unnecessary,” bin Laden said in the video, according to the transcript released by the SITE Institute. “And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn’t like those who give advice.”
The al-Qaeda chief also urged those wanting to know the reasons why the West is “losing” the war to “read the book of Michael Scheuer.”
Elsewhere in the Mainichi interview, Chomsky is quoted as saying:
— That he had predicted directly after 9/11 that governments would use the attacks “as an excuse” to intensify repression.
— That the invasion of Iraq was a war crime.
— That the U.S. bombed Taliban-ruled Afghanistan after 9/11 despite having no real evidence at the time that the plot had been hatched in that country.
— That while Afghanistan today needs constructive help, including offers of alternatives to poppy cultivation by peasants, “what the West prefers to do is to bomb.”
— That “the United States is not a functioning democracy.”
— That the “first 9/11” wasn’t the al-Qaeda attack in 2001 but the Sept. 11, 1973 military coup that toppled Chile’s communist President Salvadore Allende. “The effect of the first 9/11 was incomparably worse than the second 9/11,” Chomsky says. “How come nobody talks about that? Well there is a simple reason. Because we were responsible for it.”
Democracy became a term of derision among neo-isolationists and believers in the realpolitik that had led to 9/11 - expressing a contempt few Americans of the past could ever have imagined hearing.
As was noted here on FR, President Bush avoided the term "democracy" for more than a year. He had the forethought at the time to push for "freedom" (not "democracy") for Iraq, recognizing--as bright people have for millenia, such as after Socrates got a taste of "democracy" (yum, tastes like hemlock!) right on up through the Federalist No. 10--that "democracy" is not necessarily a good thing if the majority of the people want to act badly.
Unfortunately, the caution was dropped by the Administration a bit too soon. But regardless, it's paranoia or ignorance that puts this on "neo-isolationists." But I guess that's typical for neocon anti-American Republic views.
But as I have said before, Nazi Germany had nothing directly to do with the Pearl Harbor attack on the U.S. by the Japanese in 1941.
But the USA did not declare war on Germany and Italy until after they declared war on the USA (December 10, 1941).
Rashid Ali was quickly overthrown, the 2003 U.S.-led intervention in Iraq may be viewed as a long-delayed settling of an account left over for more than six decades.
Bizarre stretch. How many other accounts does he picture are laying around unsettled that the US has to butt into? The USA had nothing to do with Iraq's attempt to break free from Britain's colonialism, and Gaylani was Prime Minister nearly a decade before WWII and the coup--it's very misleading to imply that this all is one big sweeping storyline. An alliance with the Soviets in WWII helped us to meet our goals, but it doesn't mean we were wanting to be communist. Likewise, Gaylani's goal wasn't to make Iraq Nazi.
What's next, tying in the Hundred Years War because--like Iraq--America fought Britain for its independence and sided with Britain's enemy? Sheesh.
Exit stategy? Bin Laden could behead himself for the world to see - that might work for me.
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.