T Nation

Latest Tapes from Bin Laden


I don't know if everyone has seen them but I read the transcripts of the latest tapes our terrorist pals just issued. Pretty clear what they intend to do.

One thing is clear. They hate Bush and they hate the fact he has sent a large percentage of thier members to meet Allah and explain themselves.

I can't help thinking that they would love to see Bush not relected and a president more "sensitive" to the opinion of foriegn goverments elected. One who would be conciliatory to the Islamic Fundamentalists who preach terror. Someone who would try and find out what's really bothering them.

My two cents. That isn't George Bush and that is exactly why I will vote for him. I think this is a war and in war you kill the enemy and make them surrender. He has that figured out. I don't think the other candidates do. I live and work in NYC. I don't want the war on terror fought here. I want it fought over where these guys live.


Well, I support John Edwards but I will agree that Kerry's attitude to terrorists-at-large will be a step back toward ineffective police action.

This Washington Post article is a REVELATION. It shows the difference between interpreting terrorism as a war [Bush] or "largely a law enforcement matter" [Kerry]. I'm not a Clinton-basher, but the facts indicate that the attitude which reigned pre-9/11 explains why Bin Laden wasn't dead before Bush came to office. You have to register to read it, but it will be one of the most important articles of the year:



He (Senator Kerry) stands by his vote to authorize force in Iraq, but believes Bush's prosecution of the war "created a breeding ground for terror" and alienated allies"

-said Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter

This statement was made today in response to Bush's critique of Kerry's voting record. I do not believe that Steph realizes that we went into Iraq 2 yrs. after the 9/11 attacks.


I want it fought over where these guys live.

Where is that Hamburg, Germany? Marseilles, France?


The war on terroism is like the war on drugs, it will never end no matter who's in office or who you capture or kill. just look at what happened to escobar


Terrorist activities have been around since the beginning of human society. Fighting terrorists is like putting out small fires. And this will never end, regardless of policy (preventative or reactive). It's just a reality we all must deal with. I'm sure U.S. soil will be hit again and there's almost nothing we can do about that -- we just have to be as prepared as possible to respond.


We COULD turn the Middle East into a shiny mirror. We won't, but it is something we could do about it.


I don't want to be in sensitive to a serious subject.

But most likely any terrorists are not going to be living in the Middle East; they are going to be living in the West.

Some may even be born and raised in the West and never have lived (only visited the Middle East).

For example the two most well known of the 9/11 terrorists: Attar and Moussaoui (the 20th highjacker).

Attar was living in Hamburg, Germany for quite some time. Moussaoui was born and raised in Southern France (around Marseille) and had as far as I know never lived in the Middle East only the West.

So trying (do you really think it is possible?) to turn the Middle East into a shinning Mirror is really only going to spur on the terrorists already living in the West.

Terrorism is one of many problems caused by decades of poor immigration and social policy. Military action will not solve anything. Only changing the immigration and social policy that caused the problem will have any positive effect (plus you don?t have to kill anyone). But it would seem it is more PC to engage in a decades long war, killing untold numbers of people than questioning the sacred cow that is multiculturalism.


bluey, this sentence does not make sense:
"But it would seem it is more PC to engage in a decades long war, killing untold numbers of people than questioning the sacred cow that is multiculturalism"

The war in Iraq itself is not PC, and while not racist, is antithetical to multiculturalism.

More scrutiny of our borders does not conflict with either police apprehension of terrorist suspects or targetting people with the intent to kill Americans, and the countries which choose to support and protect them.

Also, please remember that immigrants, good-hearted visitors to our country, and the sons and daughters of immigrants were all victims on September 11.


All I was saying was that people are much more willing to go to war (killing people) than question a few unpleasant realities closer to home. Such as that it was immigrants to Europe that executed 9/11. And that their are large pools of angry, disaffected Muslim youth in the West already. In other words the problems are not in the mountains of Afghanistan, or the deserts of Iraq etc but are in the streets of Paris, Sydney, Moscow, New York etc.

What you do about this I don?t know?

I find it amazing that you take unbridged at the suggestion that multiculturalism may not be the shinning light that it is claimed. But you do not take unbridged to doogie?s suggestion of killing 1 billion plus people and turning the Middle East into a shinning mirror (through I assume nuclear weapons).


I will vote for Bush because he realizes it is a war. I n war people get killed. If you kill more of the enemy then he does of your people...you win or eliminate his will to continue. Bush understands that. He didn't start this war they did. You don't negotiate with terrorists you kill them or lock them up. I just don't think Kerry understands that. It would be like agreeing with the Japanese reason's for attacking Peral Harbor instead of fighting them.



I didn't advocate killing billions of people. I just pointed out that it was well within our power to do so. It pisses me off that we have been so restrained in our response to terrorist attacks on us, yet we get no credit at all for holding back.


"In other words the problems are not in the mountains of Afghanistan, or the deserts of Iraq etc but are in the streets of Paris, Sydney, Moscow, New York etc."

(1) We cannot (and should not) simply prevent almost every Muslim from entering the U.S.
(2) Even if we did, Muslim terrorists would still find a way to attack our country. We are in their homes, through their satellite dishes, inflaming their stagnant societies. In Saudia Arabia, the men are addicted to our porn. Hezbollah competes with the secular world by offering our porn to recruits in their clubhouses.

"I find it amazing that you take unbridged at the suggestion that multiculturalism may not be the shinning light that it is claimed. But"

You should re-read my post. I do not believe multiculturalism is a shining light. But cultural tolerance without relativism is.

"you do not take unbridged to doogie?s suggestion of killing 1 billion plus people and turning the Middle East into a shinning mirror (through I assume nuclear weapons)."

When Doogie alluded to that, he said he was not advocating this. I guess I should say to Doogie though that I don't like flippant talk about nuclear war, or war in general. I do not believe that our war against the Taliban was one that we started.


Actually, Bluey, now I've read the sentence to which you're referring. I skipped over it, so I didn't say anything. My mind was playing tricks on me and I mistook his explanation of his earlier remarks as the original remarks.

I do take umbrage at what Doogie said.



I know that you were not advocating turning the Middle East into a mirror. But I was trying to make the point that in general people are much more comfortable with military action to solve problems than possibly looking for solutions in changes to government/media policy. I would have thought that if you can solve a problem through non-military means it would be preferable. I also agree that America has been quite restrained. It would have been easy to ?nuke Mecca" but I really think this would have made everything much worse.

Brian Smith

I am not in favour of anything too radical, neither massive changes at home nor the attempt to transform foreign states (in general I would have thought it was a good idea to avoid ?foreign entanglements?). Just the suggestion that if you are violently opposed to the West maybe it would be best that you did not live in the West.

I never understood this cultural tolerance argument. Pim Fortuyn said it best how can I be tolerant of a culture that is completely intolerant of me. Or something of that ilk (I don't speak Dutch). For example how can you be tolerant of groups in the West (already) that call for the overthrow of western government and the establishment of Sharia Law?

The West is dying quite literally with negative population growth. While the developing world, especially the Arab world has explosive population growth. As tides of immigrant sweep into the West, these problems (one of which is terrorism) are only to get more acute. The leaders of the EU are calling for 100 million plus new immigrants over the next few decades. What other problems will policies like this cause? Are open or relatively porous boarders really such a good idea?


Maybe I can't understand your position because I don't live in NYC. But I find it difficult to understand your willingness for war. I don't suggest that we should do nothing or accommodate anyone. But if a non-military solution works surely it is a better outcome. A non-military solution does not mean that is soft and weak; it could be quite punitive and harsh.

WW2 is always the compression that people use. Here it was a war between Nations. I feel WW1 has is much better parable. WW1 started when a terrorist group (i.e. the Serbian Black Hands) shot the Heir to the Austrian throne. There was no question that Austria had the right to retaliate. But Austria?s actions and the madness of alliance politics lead to the great slaughter of WW1 and the death of the Austrian Empire its self.


Bluey, read the article. The Clinton administration named Bin Laden but decided not to go after the Taliban. Was Afghanistan merely a country that offhandedly gave support to individuals who wanted to do us harm? Or did the government have the same impossible dreams of expanding Sharia law?


Yes I agree. But the question is how is Sharia law or radical Islam going to force its self on the west. Are Islamic armies going to invade in the conventional territorial sense? Or is an Islamic Diaspora going to be created in the West. Which will then claim it is being oppressed and then demand and fight for self rule (also would include ruling over anyone else trapped in the wrong area). I think and history shows that the second case is much more likely. Have a look at what is happening in Europe. Are these problems going to get worse when demographic changes swing wildly against Westerns and in favour of immigrants? I mean Eur-Arabia is not a joke.

I guess you could ask your self what use is fighting in foreign lands when you leave your home unguarded.


I think the view that Bin Larden, Al-quida and the Taliban are at the top and are giving commands and planning the whole thing is a little false. They are just the most conspicuous manifestations (in their case violent) of an expanding Islamic world (witness the birth-rates). Even if you could stop them would that solve the problem?

Why the US government is advocating and pushing that Turkey be allowed to join the EU is beyond me. IMHO America has a limited number of friends around the world. Most of these are in Europe (except France and Germany but still look at Italy, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, U.K. etc). Most likely France and Germany are now anti-American as opposed to being pro-American in the past because they are largely playing up to a sizable Muslim minority in their misted. France has a population of about 50 million and a Muslim minority of 5 million at present. If you assume that a 10% minority is enough to cause anti-Americanism (as long as the Muslim world remains largely anti-America), what effect will emitting Turkey a Muslim nation of about 50 million in to 400 million strong EU have on America?s support base in the Euro land? This is on top of the 20 million Muslims already in Western Europe and the many million more Muslim immigrants to come in the next decades. Why would America be in favour of destroying it support base in Europe by radically changing the demographics of its supporters? Why is this a trivial concern in people?s minds?

This is largely my point fighting wars in far-flung places while ignoring realities closer to home seems suicidal. In other words the problems are closer to home.


I'll agree with you that cloistered Muslim immigrant communities present a problem. A recent survey of Muslim women in France found that 51% FAVORED the ban on the hijab. The reason--presumably--is as long as they were to have no choice either at home or at school, they wanted the opportunity not to wear the headdress outside the home. It is very difficult to enforce individual rights within these communities, which for all their moderation, usually romanticize Islam and find some empathy with the radical agenda, at least in their aggressively anti-American politics.
However, I'm also saying that to forswear actual wars against regimes such as the Taliban is suicidal. Their attacks are inevitable. For such regimes, the goal of spreading Sharia on our shores or throughout the world is linked to the mass murder of our people and armageddon-like destablization of our society. You can complain that this pairing is illogical, but that's futile. Yes, it is illogical, and it is a central part of their worldview.


Look at it this way. The enemy views all Americans as a target. Men, women and children (i.e. innocents). As soon as we accept that fact the better. Next what do we do about it. Do we fight with honor or do we fight for our lives?

I would never advocate the slaughter of innocents. I think it is immoral. However, our enemy does not have the same repulsion in this regard. Therefore, when combatants, supporters and enablers are identified they must be dealt with. You do not deal with radical idealouges. They are not open to new ideas. If they want to kill you, you better accept the fact and decide if you are going to kill them first. Only when the cost of terrorism becomes too high to bear will it stop. Look at the nations that supported terrorism (Afganistan, Libya, soon to be N. Korea) they are suddenly renouncing it after seeing our resolve in Iraq.

Will the Islamic world hate us. Of course. They hate us because we are Americans not because of what we do. They hate us because of who we are.

Does being in NYC color my view. Absolutely. I saw the aftermath of the appeasment of our enemies. Like it or not we are still a symbolic target. You can't walk by Ground Zero and not be filled with resolve about what we must do. Two and one half years later you can stand at the hole in the ground and look around. You will see the friends and relatives of those lost on that day still crying and remembering them.