Osama Bin Laden.

[Billy_Dean]

I came across this interview whilst researching a related topic. It's very long, so I've not reproduced it here.

This interview discusses the reasons behind Osama bin Laden's actions. It appears to have been conducted before 9\11, and acts as a chilling prelude.

Please read the WHOLE interview before commenting, thanx. :)


Dr. Saad Al-Fagih

A Saudi Arabian dissident living in exile in London, he heads the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia. As a physician, he took part in the Afghan rebels' war against the Soviet invasion and explains the significance of that war for Muslims throughout the world. As a fellow Saudi dissident, he knows about bin Laden and his views.
Interview conducted by Martin Smith.

The interview. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagih.html)


:)


Edit: Fixed link, now goes to top of page.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 October 2003 - 10:16
I came across this interview whilst researching a related topic.  It's very long, so I've not reproduced it here.

This interview discusses the reasons behind Osama bin Laden's actions.  It appears to have been conducted before 9\11, and acts as a chilling prelude.

Please read the WHOLE interview before commenting, thanx.  :)


Dr. Saad Al-Fagih

A Saudi Arabian dissident living in exile in London, he heads the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia. As a physician, he took part in the Afghan rebels' war against the Soviet invasion and explains the significance of that war for Muslims throughout the world. As a fellow Saudi dissident, he knows about bin Laden and his views.
Interview conducted by Martin Smith.

The interview. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagih.html#alqaeda)


:)
What do you think of it Billy. Presumably with this one you have an opinion.

Or is this another subject which means nothing to you and you just wish others to discuss it.

Oh and I haven't read any of it, other than the bit you posted. I still feel free to post, in spite of your instruction not to, is that OK.

Is this in it

Dr Saad al-Fagih explains the origins of Al Qaeda in the same way as FRONTLINE's unnamed source. It's not a secret organization at all. It was common knowledge to many people who went there. ... Al Qaeda was public knowledge. It was a record of people who ended up in Peshawar and joined, and move from Peshawar to Afghanistan. It was very [benign] information. A simple record of people who were there just to make record available to bin Laden if he's asked by any family or any friend what happened to Mr. so-and-so." Dr. al-Fagih continues "It's not like an organization--like any other terrorist organization or any other underground group. I don't think he used any name for his underground group. If you want to name it, you can name it "bin Laden group." But if they are using the term Al Qaeda ... Al Qaeda is just a record for the people who came to Peshawar and moved from there back and forth to the guest house. And moved back to their country."

[Billy_Dean]

Thanx JP, you can always be called upon to bring benign humour into these threads, where would serious discussions be without you?

BTW, I put those instructions in especially for you to ignore, you never disappoint.


:)

[lynx]

I, like JPaul, have not read the entire article. I particularly dislike it when there are so many [edited] bits, it implies that the reader cannot understand the original wording, or possibly that the original does not convey the message that the editor wants. Either conveys a distasteful slant.

It would be interesting to know why you asked people to read all of it, yet your link leads into the middle of the article not the start. Did you in fact want us to only read and react on that part, despite your comments to the contrary.

[J'Pol]

As do you with the "you never dissapoint" phrase. Getting a bit old hat now don't you think.

Oh and we both know that was not the reason you put them in, though as ever your 20/20 hindsight is impressive.

I like this new idea tho'. Bin Laden just being tall, thin and misunderstood. Where do you get this stuff from. Do you trawl the internet looking for it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What's your opinion on this one, I think it's drivel. Or are you sticking with the not giving an opinion in your own threads thing now.

[billyfridge]

After reading this interesting and informative interview it looks like Bush and Blair
have got us up to the neck in shit. I think we should pull out and recruit Saddam and co, they know the hairy arsed arabs better than we do. <_<

[Billy_Dean]

@ Lynx. I wasn&#39;t aware it started in the middle, I just copied the URL. Is there a way to change it?

As to the editing, I got the impression that maybe the guy&#39;s English was not that good.


@ JP. For someone who doesn&#39;t read articles, you seem to overflow with opinions. Am I now meant to take you seriously? Maybe if you were capable of reading other points of view without the benefit of your Nicene tinted glasses, you may one day arrive at an opinion of your own. I look forward to meeting it.

As to my opinion; I see this is another side of the story to the propaganda bullshit we are constantly fed by the so-called intelligence services. I also believe there is a lesson for the west to learn here, out of the mouth of someone close to the action. I believe the main points he makes, that US military bases in Saudi Arabia, and the shoring up of an unpopular regime, are the cause of most of the trouble. I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if this were one of the reasons the US has moved into Iraq. It will be interesting to see now how the US pulls out of Saudi Arabia, as they surely will.





:)

[J'Pol]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

More religious abuse. Ah the leopard and his spots.

[Billy_Dean]

I think you&#39;ll find there should be a comma after "Ah" JP, otherwise it sounds like it&#39;s a leopard named Ah.


:)

[Rat Faced]

Why do you assume its Pro- Bin Laden?

It also criticises him, pointing out fundamental errors he&#39;s made..


You say that there would be sympathy because you want to expel foreign troops from your land. But ... was a mistake for bin Laden to declare that Americans or Jews should be killed anywhere in the world?

Many Muslims see this as not acceptable on two folds. Not acceptable Islamically. Because you cannot sanction the blood of any American or any Jew. You have to have strict conditions to sanction any human blood in Islam. And this is not acceptable. [Really any] average Muslim would argue against that. But there is the other reason for not accepting, the strategic [reason]. If you want to fight America, you have to present an acceptable argument. ... You have an occupied country. And when you say, "I want to expel Americans," your argument will be accepted. When you say, ..."I want to fight any American in the world," any ... average American would have negative feelings against you. Even if he is Muslim American sometimes. So that&#39;s why people say it is Islamically questionable as well as strategically questionable. ...




I can believe this guy is just trying to answer the questions put to him; the way he see&#39;s it......

Of course it will be biased, exactly the same as if you asked an American the same questions. However, if your not willing to hear what the problem is for the Middle East (or his section of it), then maybe your part of the problem. :P

[lynx]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 October 2003 - 12:43
As to the editing, I got the impression that maybe the guy&#39;s English was not that good.
Exactly my point. Does the editor believe he is the only one who can interpret the meaning? And is the editor&#39;s interpretation necessarily correct? Editing at the level in this piece makes the whole interview suspect, or at least this version of it. There are also instances of editing of the questions - does this mean that the interviewer&#39;s English isn&#39;t too good either.

Of course, it may be that the article accurately reflects Dr. Al-Fagih&#39;s views, but it could equally be grossly distorted one way or the other. Without some sort of follow-up , it is impossible to tell.

...

I&#39;ve now seen more interviews with Dr. Al-Fagih, he doesn&#39;t seem to have a linguistic problem in those. I feel you need to be more selective in the articles you pick for comment, or should we assume that you have been very selective already?

[Billy_Dean]

I told you at the beginning, I came across it looking for something else. If you have other info, post it, this is a discussion, not a contest.

:)

[Billy_Dean]

More links. He doesn&#39;t appear to be saying anything different on any of the sites I&#39;ve visited.

The main argument here, as I see it, is the reasoning behind the current spate of terrorism attributed to bin Laden, On the one hand, we are being told that it is an attack on our way of life, that we are "infidels" to them, who must be eliminated. The other view, is that this is a political agenda, a fight against the "occupation" of a country by a foreign power, desecrating their holy land, propping up a corrupt regime, and protecting "their" oil. I know which view I lean towards.

Lateline interview. (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s637989.htm)

Panorama interview. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/panorama/1547227.stm)

And their website.

The Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (http://www.yaislah.org/englishnew.htm)

Another, almost related, article. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/806179.asp?cp1=1)



:)

[noname12]

Originally posted by billyfridge@12 October 2003 - 12:27
After reading this interesting and informative interview it looks like Bush and Blair
have got us up to the neck in shit. I think we should pull out and recruit Saddam and co, they know the hairy arsed arabs better than we do. <_<
Shut up you buck toothed moron,


[edit: first post too offencive]

[J'Pol]

RF

I believe he is pro Bin Laden, I have read a few things about this chap, some interviews and writings. Here&#39;s one :



"Abu Zubaydah is dead. They killed him. The guy the Americans captured is some low-level look-alike."

The words came out of nowhere -- and rather nonchalantly -- from Dr. Saad al Fagih, a former Saudi Arabian surgeon who has spent the past eight years of his life living as a guest of the British, a Saudi political dissident in exile. I&#39;ve known Saad since August of 1998 -- just after the embassy bombings in East Africa -- when I began researching the subject that takes me back to London to see him again today: Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the surge of terrorism that shadows modern Islam.

Saad says he&#39;s never met bin Laden, but he is connected somehow. For one, the satellite telephone that bin Laden allegedly used to plan the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings was purchased from a merchant in Columbus, Ohio, on Saad&#39;s own credit card.

Clever as he is, he&#39;s stayed out of trouble with the law. And over the years, Saad has been a fairly reliable source. But the idea that Abu Zubaydah is dead seems pretty incredible. Zubaydah has been consistently touted as the one big American "get," the highest-level snatch in a war on terror that has left most of Al Qaeda&#39;s top leaders either free or unaccounted for. Now Saad is claiming that even Abu Zubaydah, the one success story, the man supposedly feeding American investigators bits of precious intelligence from an undisclosed lockup, has not been caught after all. Instead, according to Saad, Americans are feeding on scraps of some Al Qaeda lackey.

It&#39;s a familiar story: If the Americans think they&#39;ve hurt the organization, they&#39;re wrong. If the FBI thinks it&#39;s got a high-level Al Qaeda commander in custody, they&#39;re fooled. If America thinks Al Qaeda is defeated, just wait.

The comment about Abu Zubaydah rolls past, as do many more claims. He then takes me online to his favorite Web chat-room and shows me the latest gossip about Al Qaeda. Along with his cybermates, Saad keeps spinning tales of heroism and escape, and he chuckles when he talks about how stupid and arrogant he thinks the Americans are.

When we say goodbye, Saad complains that I asked him about the bin Laden satellite phone. I feel a chill. He asks me to exclude this from our broadcast. I promise to tell him in advance what I intend to do. But that&#39;s the only promise I make.

In the afternoon I meet the affable and somewhat foolish Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, founder of the al Mujahiroun Web site, whose stated mission is to establish an Islamic state in the U.K. Bakri boasts to me about his recent fatwa calling for President Musharraf of Pakistan to be put on trial for siding with the Americans in the "war against Islam." "If he is convicted, the punishment would be death."

The guy is big and jaunty and seems to enjoy waging jihad with the enthusiasm of a party host. "It&#39;s a Quranic duty to fight infidels. It is my duty not to like them," he says. Amused by his performance, I tease him and ask if he dislikes me. He responds seriously but with a smile: "Yes, but that doesn&#39;t mean I hate you." I think that I am supposed to feel comforted by the distinction. It all seems like a well-rehearsed performance.

As we pack up to leave, he is on the phone issuing a fatwa to a woman who has called for advice on how to handle a misbehaving husband.

[J'Pol]

This is also from the good Doctor



Bin Ladin&#39;s direct financial assets and strategic capabilities have been hugely exaggerated. The entity known as Al-Qaeda is simply the guestbook for Muslims who entered Peshawar to join the jihad against Russia in Afghanistan. There is no such thing as a global terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda&#33; Bin-Laden is probably not directly, or even secondarily, responsible, but of course the media is able to trot out "links" that "prove" Bin-Ladin was involved. These "links" may be real, but Afghanistan was a haven for many dedicated Muslims who wanted to participate in a jihad, and many of these rich and powerful fanatics crossed paths in that country over the past twenty years. These links are far from "proof" or even "evidence" that Bin-Ladin was responsible for orchestrating and funding the September 11 attacks.

[razorsharp013]

Osama Bin Laden is worth a whole lot more to the US government alive and free than anything else, they never wanted to capture him. Bin Laden is one of the US governments greatest tools against it&#39;s own peolpe&#39;s freedoms and liberties.
Think about it, if he was killed or captured our country&#39;s "most dangerous terrorist threat" has been defeated, and the percieved threat of terrorism is all but lost in this country which takes away a lot of our government&#39;s reasoning and excuses for more and more control over the world. This nation is slowly but surely becoming a global empire, they need the Bin Ladens of the world to keep the threat alive. The more afraid they make the American peolpe the more power they gain over them.
The greatest threat to the United States was never Osama Bin Laden, and certainly not Saddam Hussein, it has always been it&#39;s impirialistic government.

[Rat Faced]

Unlike your good self JPaul, i only went off the interview posted, which was Pro-Bin Laden.....but not overly so, and does criticise him on some things ;)

The interviewer tried to find out the why of the troubles, not the what....

[J'Pol]

RF

If anyone points me at a specific interview, or report , or site, or whatever I have a wee look further afield.

If you look at the BNP website a lot of it seems pretty reasonable, if a tad extreme. If you look further you find that they are racist hatemongers.

I tend to try not to rely on the evidence of just one source, when forming my non-existent opinions.

[Rat Faced]

Good for you.

I was only asked for my opinion on that particular interview though.

As i was asked for something subjective (my view on what was posted) and not something tangable (facts)......... I thought i&#39;d give google a miss, unless i needed to :P

[J'Pol]

Fine, you stick to what people ask you to do and blindly do it.

I will make my own decisions on how to analyse the material and respond to it.

As I have said many times, to each their own mate.

[Biggles]

In my view OBL is simply one head of a hydra called Wahabis discontent.

Even if he is caught, or is already dead, the beast will spring a new head in his place. Whilst he has gained a certain symbolic importance for those who think the movement represents their greivances he is far from irreplaceable. In fact such is the driven nature of the man it is unlikely he has ever seen himself anything other than a very replaceable foot soldier.

People like Saddam started life on the back streets with nothing and set about taking everything, OBL had it all and chose instead to fight Russians in the mountains of Afghanistan. Indeed, in some ways he still is as a lot of the people he trained ended up in Chechnya.

Without coming over all conspiracy theorist, I suspect AQ was always more than just a few dusty training camps in Afghanistan and that the real force behind it reaches a long way to the top of some very established orders. There is a long way to go yet before all the issues in the ME are resolved and the primary sources of discontent healed. Until then we are in for a long haul and there will be days when it looks like everything is going backwards.

So I guess the good Dr is right in that perhaps there is an over-emphasis on the importance of OBL and OBL may well have only played a bit part in 9/11. He was after all fighting a war in Afghanistan. However, I think it would be foolish to downplay the nature and goals of AQ. They are out there and they do have an agenda and the resources set up by OBL are part of that agenda.

[Billy_Dean]

[JPaul] RF

I believe he is pro Bin Laden, I have read a few things about this chap, some interviews and writings. Here&#39;s one :

How about a link, you are always quick to pull others up for not providing them. How do we know you haven&#39;t written this yourself?

And in reply to your assertion that he is pro-OBL, so what? He provides a different point of view, something certain members find personally offensive. Luckily, there are enough posters here who are willing to consider other opinions to make the forum interesting still.

Personally, I think this guy is on the same path as OBL, an ex-comrade, but a rival, intent on political power in a "new" Saudi Arabia, something OBL will never obtain.



:)

[KeyserH]

:ph34r: just wanted to show my sig

[Rat Faced]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Love the sig...

Shame it was too Big :(

[J'Pol]

Now that is h4r5h RF

Rules is rules I suppose.

:ph34r:

[KeyserH]

i&#39;ve changed it, as you see.

less readable...

although .... more readable than no picture