Osama Bin Laden.

[lynx]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 October 2003 - 12:43
As to the editing, I got the impression that maybe the guy'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'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's English isn't too good either.

Of course, it may be that the article accurately reflects Dr. Al-Fagih'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've now seen more interviews with Dr. Al-Fagih, he doesn'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't appear to be saying anything different on any of the sites I'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.

Panorama interview.

And their website.

The Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia

Another, almost related, article.

[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'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'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'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's own credit card.

Clever as he is, he'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'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's a familiar story: If the Americans think they've hurt the organization, they're wrong. If the FBI thinks it's got a high-level Al Qaeda commander in custody, they'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'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'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'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'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! 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's own peolpe's freedoms and liberties.
Think about it, if he was killed or captured our country'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'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'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'd give google a miss, unless i needed to