Bin Laden Calls For Hussein's Overthrow

[bountyh]

I recently posted a statement that Bin laden opposed Hussein and had called him an infidel and stated that Hussein should be overthrown by true Muslims. A respondent accused me of making that up. For the good of raising the general level of knowledge, here is the source of the information I am "making up":

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/02/4162.shtml

Tape shows bin Laden OPPOSES Hussein

Pip Wilson | 13.02.2003 02:05

"If bin Laden is effectively calling on Muslim Iraqis to overthrow Saddam ... how then can the U.S. administration use this message to prove Saddam and al-Qaeda are linked?" -- Snip from article

And then something happened that neither the U.S. administration nor the media anticipated: bin Laden called Saddam an apostate.

The audio message goes on to reveal that bin Laden believes Saddam to be a socialist and declares that "socialists and communists are unbelievers," thereby labeling Saddam an apostate of Islam, an infidel. It is worth mentioning that the government of Iraq is quasi-socialist and secular, and not Islamic.

Walid Phares, an Arabic-speaking MSNBC analyst finds that the audio message undermines Saddam's regime: "Osama bin Laden does not care about Saddam, in fact he can't wait till the demise of Saddam; he is trying to position himself to offer Iraqis an alternative ideology -- he calls socialism abhorrent to Islam."

The voice alleged to be bin Laden's in the audio message also called on the spilling of Saddam's blood: "His blood is halal." This wording is used to indicate what is permissive or legally allowed for the killing of a usurper or criminal.

The audio message also called forth the overthrow of governments supporting the U.S. -- Nigeria, Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.


For the record: I never post anything I can't back up.

 

[bountyh]

Other statement:

I also said that Bin laden had ambitions to overthrow saudi Arabia.... which he already tried to do which caused them to revoke his Saudi citizenship. It is hardly a "secret" goal, but it is one not covered in the news often.


Bin Laden's secret goal is to overthrow the House of Saud

By Paul Michael Wihbey, IASPS Strategic Fellow

CONTRARY to much of the conventional wisdom about Osama bin Laden, the Saudi fugitive is hardly a madman. In fact, he has developed a stunningly deceptive regional war calculus that stands a reasonable chance of success.

Despite the massive build-up of allied forces, bin Laden's strategy depends on a set of well-conceived geopolitical assumptions that he fervently believes can turn Western military capability to his strategic advantage.

His strongest belief is that Saudi Arabia can be brought to its knees, the House of Saud deposed and a new theocracy, based on his version of a pure and uncontaminated Islam, can rise to power in the Arabian peninsula. Hoping to seize state power as Ayatollah Khomeini did in Iran in 1979, bin Laden plans to use Afghanistan as a staging ground for self-declared leadership in exile. The overriding goal is to return to Saudi Arabia in triumph and put an end to the existing regime.

Such an accomplishment would dramatically tilt the Middle Eastern balance of power in favour of radical forces led by Iraq, Iran, Syria and, of course, the global terrorist network. Even before the attacks on New York and Washington, bin Laden's power was felt at the highest level of the Saudi regime. Several days before the September 11 attacks, the Saudi chief of intelligence, who held that post for 25 years, Prince Turki, brother of the Saudi foreign minister, was abruptly fired from his post.

Turki was hardly a man to be dismissed in such fashion; he was responsible for Saudi affairs with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Saudi liaison with American intelligence services. It seems that Turki was the first high-ranking victim of a power struggle between two competing factions in the Saudi royal family over how to deal with American requests to neutralise bin Laden.

Turki's removal from authority portended further upheaval within the ruling elite of the House of Saud. Only two weeks later, and a week after the attack on America, reliable reports strongly suggest that the ailing King Fahd flew to Geneva with a massive entourage and now remains secluded behind the heavily protected walls of private estates registered in the name of his European business partners.

To bin Laden, King Fahd's departure can only be considered a victory in his campaign to rid Saudi Arabia of the contamination of American rule through their surrogates in the House of Saud. With King Fahd's health maintained on a 24-hour medical watch, and the Saudi royal family divided between the conservative, religious faction of Crown Prince Abdullah and that of the defence minister, King Fahd's full brother, Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia's future political course and, with it, the stability of the Gulf is about to be decided.

Bin Laden has waited for this since 1991, when he was cast aside by the Saudis for offering his fighting forces in defence of the kingdom against Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden is intimately aware of the fragility of the Saudi power structure.

He is the scion of a family, led by his father, Mohamed, that, in the mid-1960s, engineered the transfer of the Saudi throne away from the corrupt King Saud to the pious King Faisal. In effect, Mohamed bin Laden was a king-maker and his son grew up with an intimate knowledge of the personal proclivities and weaknesses of the senior members of the ruling elite.

He came to despise what he saw as a corrupt and malignant power structure indistinguishable from the American political system. Undeterred by deference and loyalty, he understood that the legitimacy of the Saudi royal family could be undermined by championing an alternative, indigenous religious ideology. Large numbers of young disaffected Saudis felt increasingly alienated by a regime that could neither defend itself by its own means nor maintain a standard of living that has dropped from $18,000 per capita in the 1980s to $6,000 in 2000.

With a deteriorating economic and political environment, bin Laden may decide that the time is approaching to activate the thousands of Saudi dissidents in the kingdom who form the core of his support, and thereby exploit the schism between Abdullah and Sultan to launch the destabilisation of the Saudi monarchy.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strategic/pmwbinladen.htm

 

[gburner]

'The voice alleged to be Bin Laden's...' 'Nuff said.
Alleged by whom, under what circumstances, documented how, verified by whom, compared to what, during what time frame, in response to what circumstances or questions, was he (allegedly) speaking literally, theorhetically, or just blowing smoke in an effort to make the west look bad, and on and on...gonna have to do better than that, Sparky. Also, how did a guy in San Diego get a tape with 'alleged' Bin Laden gibberish on it anyhow? Did the tape originate at a Kinkos in Texas?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Quartus]

gburner, you just don't get it, do you? Let me spell it out for you:

1. Evidence that looks good for Bush is forged.
2. Evidence that looks bad for Bush is authentic.

Well, even if it's forged it's still true.


Got it?

 

[Fred Hansen]

Besides - even if it is Osama - and even though Osama bin Blowedup would gut your children in front of you with a rusty carving knife, doesn't mean that he would ever say anything he didn't mean.

For the record: I never post anything I can't back up.

You posted a thread saying that the contents of badly forged documents were 100% true; using the words of the forger himself to "back up" the contents of the forgery.

And now you post something that says "the man thought to be bin Laden", and you expect us to take it as Gospel. No thanks.

Believe it or not, most people only consider facts to be back up. Unless we are talking ankle holsters, or reverse gear, or something which is a whole different kind of back up. Which we can do, provided it's a real holster, or a real gear, not a fake one.

 

[OF]

Even if it is bin Wormfood, I don't think that a US military presence in a non-sharia democratic Iraq was on his list of favored outcomes.

- Gabe

 

[bountyh]

" For the record: I never post anything I can't back up."

You posted a thread saying that the contents of badly forged documents were 100% true; using the words of the forger himself to "back up" the contents of the forgery.

I said that the information contained in those "forged" documents was true ACCORDING TO AN EYE WITNESS WHO WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT of the commander, whose name is Marian Carr Knox. SHE IS NOT THE FORGER, She was his assistant. Go look it up, here is what my post says.

MY EXACT QUOTE I POSTED:

"According to the woman who worked as the secretary of Bush's commanding officer (Marian Carr Knox). She says the content of the memos is exactly what the CO said and wrote down about the events of the time."

And guess what?

THAT IS TRUE! She said very clearly that:

1) The information was true.

2) She had read similar information from the CO's private journal.

3) She believed the person who wrote the "forged" document got the information by reading said journal.

THAT IS WHAT SHE SAID. Here is the direct quote from what SHE said:

"Knox says she didn’t type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information.

“Did or did not Lt. Bush take a physical as ordered by Col. Killian,” Rather asks Knox.
“The last time, no he didn’t,” says Knox. “It was a big no-no to not follow orders. And I can’t remember anyone refusing to. Now for instance, with the physical, every officer knew that before his birthday he was supposed to have that flying physical. Once in a while they might be late, but there would be a good excuse for it and let the commander know and try to set up a date for a make-up. If they did not take that physical, they were off flying status until they did.”

Did Knox ever hear Killian talk about this, or did he write memos about Bush not taking the physical?

“He was upset about it. That was one of the reasons why he wrote a memo directing him to go take the physical,” says Knox. “I’m going to say this, but it seems to me that Bush felt that he was above reproach.”


Knox says that Killian started what she calls a "cover-your-back" file -- a personal file where he stored the memos about the problems with Mr. Bush's performance, his failure to take a physical, and the pressure Killian felt from upstairs.

She addressed one memo, and a reference to retired Gen. Staudt pushing for a positive officer training report on Lt. Bush.

"’Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it.’ Does that sound like Col. Killian? Is that the way it felt,” Rather asked Knox.

“That's absolutely the way he felt about that," says Knox.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain643768.shtml"

GOT IT YET?

 

[bountyh]

'The voice alleged to be Bin Laden's...' 'Nuff said.
Alleged by whom, under what circumstances, documented how, verified by whom, compared to what, during what time frame, in response to what circumstances or questions, was he (allegedly) speaking literally, theorhetically, or just blowing smoke in an effort to make the west look bad, and on and on...gonna have to do better than that, Sparky. Also, how did a guy in San Diego get a tape with 'alleged' Bin Laden gibberish on it anyhow? Did the tape originate at a Kinkos in Texas?

Inquiring minds want to know.

No, they don't. They just want to ridicule anything that threatens their warped beliefs. For the record, our own CIA confirmed that the voice was Bin laden's. I don't know why you people can't use a search engine.


" U.S. officials said the tape does seem to be from bin Laden, and that a technical analysis will be done. Officials also said this tape was of much better quality than the previous one presumed to be from bin Laden, which Al-Jazeera broadcast in November. A U.S. analysis of that tape concluded it extremely likely the tape was authentic. "

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/11/sprj.irq.wrap/



U.S. officials said the tape was probably genuine, the strongest evidence so far that bin Laden survived the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban government and the al Qaeda network of the Saudi-born militant.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

Next time you want to call me a liar, try doing some research.

 

[bountyh]

The Full Story From Ms. Knox's Words:

Check the information below against what I said in my post (which you posted a lie about by misquoting me).

And think twice about calling me a liar next time.



Here is the complete text of the report I quoted when I said (and quite accurately) that the assistant to CO of Bush's national Guard unit (Colonell Killian) had vouched for the accuracy of the disputed documents.. Ms Knox states very clearly that the CONTENT of the memos in question for authenticity are true and agree with memos she typed at that time. You can believe her or not, but what I said is a fact: the CONTENT of the disputed memos was corroborated by a witness who was Killian's assistant.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories


Now, another voice - a credible voice - has entered the debate. Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox, describes herself as Killian's "right hand" during much of the 1970s.//She flew to New York Wednesday afternoon to tell 60 Minutes that she believes the documents we obtained are not authentic.

She told Correspondent Dan Rather that she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported.

Knox says she didn’t type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information.

“I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct.”

Knox says that Killian started what she calls a "cover-your-back" file -- a personal file where he stored the memos about the problems with Mr. Bush's performance,

“It's just like a personal journal,” says Knox. “You write things. It was more or less that.”

“These memos were not memos that you typed, and you don’t think they came directly out of his files,” Rather asked Knox.

“The information, yes,” says Knox. “It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn’t get in trouble over it.”





For The Record: Bush Documents

Sept. 20, 2004


Marian Carr Knox, the secretary to President Bush's National Guard commander, tells her story to Dan Rather. (Photo: CBS)

Knox remembers then-Lt. Bush well, and saw him often as he showed up for weekend training in 1971 and 1972. (Photo: AP / CBS)

(CBS) EDITOR'S NOTE: CBS News has issued a statement about the authenticity of documents mentioned in the Sept. 8, 2004 broadcast of 60 Minutes about President Bush's service in the National Guard. CBS News says it can no longer vouch for the authenticity of the documents, and that the documents should not have been used in the broadcast.

CBS News pledged "an independent review of the process by which the report was prepared and broadcast to help determine what actions need to be taken."

60 Minutes also presented documents for the first time which indicated that once Mr. Bush was accepted into the Guard, he failed to live up to the requirements of his service, including following an order. And we also reported that the documents were written by then-Lt. Bush's National Guard squad commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who passed away in 1984.

In the past week, those documents have been subjected to extraordinary scrutiny and criticism.

Now, another voice - a credible voice - has entered the debate. Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox, describes herself as Killian's "right hand" during much of the 1970s.

She flew to New York Wednesday afternoon to tell 60 Minutes that she believes the documents we obtained are not authentic.

But there's yet another confusing twist to this story. She told Correspondent Dan Rather that she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported. Knox is 86 years old, and completely comfortable in the eye of a storm. She spent more than two decades keeping pilots and officers in line at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Now, she wants to set the record straight about the memos that CBS News obtained.

Knox says she didn’t type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information.

“I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct.”

Knox says the information in the four memos that CBS obtained is very familiar, but she doesn't believe the memos are authentic. She does, however, remember Killian being upset over Mr. Bush's failure to take a physical.

“Did or did not Lt. Bush take a physical as ordered by Col. Killian,” Rather asks Knox.
“The last time, no he didn’t,” says Knox. “It was a big no-no to not follow orders. And I can’t remember anyone refusing to. Now for instance, with the physical, every officer knew that before his birthday he was supposed to have that flying physical. Once in a while they might be late, but there would be a good excuse for it and let the commander know and try to set up a date for a make-up. If they did not take that physical, they were off flying status until they did.”

Did Knox ever hear Killian talk about this, or did he write memos about Bush not taking the physical?

“He was upset about it. That was one of the reasons why he wrote a memo directing him to go take the physical,” says Knox. “I’m going to say this, but it seems to me that Bush felt that he was above reproach.” Knox remembers Lt. Bush well, and saw him often as he showed up for weekend training in 1971 and 1972.

“He was always very gentlemanly. He called me by the name of his father’s secretary. He was always apologizing about that,” recalls Knox. “He couldn’t remember my name. I felt that his parents must have been wonderful to have produced somebody as nice as that.”

But did Lt. Bush get into the National Guard on the basis of preferential treatment?

“I'm going to say that he did,” says Knox. “I feel that he did, because there were a lot other boys in there in the same way."

So what kind of officer was Lt. Bush?

“Bush seemed to be having a good time. He didn't seem to be having any problem with the other pilots,” says Knox. “But, his time there, it seemed that the other fellows were, I’m going to say this, sort of resentful of him because of his attitude … that he really didn’t have to go by the rules.”

Knox says that Killian started what she calls a "cover-your-back" file -- a personal file where he stored the memos about the problems with Mr. Bush's performance, his failure to take a physical, and the pressure Killian felt from upstairs.

She addressed one memo, and a reference to retired Gen. Staudt pushing for a positive officer training report on Lt. Bush.

"’Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it.’ Does that sound like Col. Killian? Is that the way it felt,” Rather asked Knox.

“That's absolutely the way he felt about that," says Knox.

She also talked about another memo which she doesn’t believe is authentic -- but she says the facts behind it are very real.

“It's just like a personal journal,” says Knox. “You write things. It was more or less that.”

“These memos were not memos that you typed, and you don’t think they came directly out of his files,” Rather asked Knox.

“The information, yes,” says Knox. “It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn’t get in trouble over it.” Knox says the fact that then-Lt. Bush was repeatedly missing drills was not lost on his fellow pilots.

“They missed him. It was sort of gossip around there, and they'd [the other officers would] snicker and so forth about what he was getting away with,” says Knox. “I guess there was even a resentment."

She told 60 Minutes again and again that she believed Lt. Bush refused a direct order to take a physical.

“Col. Killian’s son says that this isn’t true,” says Rather.

"He has no way of knowing whether that is true or not," says Knox.

Knox says that working in a senate campaign in 1972 became more important to Mr. Bush than flying for the Guard.

"I think it is plain and simple. Bush didn't think that he had to go by the rules that others did,” says Knox.

"He had this campaign to take care of, and that's what he was going to do -- and that's what he did do.”60 Minutes will continue to aggressively investigate the story of President Bush's service in the National Guard -- and the story of the documents and memos in Col. Killian's file.

Are those documents authentic, as experts consulted by CBS News continue to maintain? Or were they forgeries or re-creations, as Knox and many others believe?

We will keep an open mind and we will continue to report credible evidence and responsible points of view as we try to answer the questions raised about the authenticity of the documents.

Having said that, 60 Minutes feels that it's important to underscore this point: Those who have criticized aspects of our story have never criticized the major thrust of our report -- that George Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard, and once accepted, failed to satisfy the requirements of his service. If we uncover any information to the contrary, that information will also be reported.

© MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[bountyh]

OK, whatever.

I see my posts are getting carved up and edited for content so I guess the rule is that anybody can post lies about me, but when I call them on it it's going to get edited out. That will save me a lot of wasted time in the future. I won't bother to reply, but my original statement stands unchallenged: I don't post things I can't back up and calling me a liar will not end well for you.

And if the moderators are going to edit out things, why don't you edit out the liar's post that started this exchange:

Quote:
"For the record: I never post anything I can't back up."  (MY POST)


You posted a thread saying that the contents of badly forged documents were 100% true; using the words of the forger himself to "back up" the contents of the forgery. (LIE)

 

[Destructo6]

Osama bin Laden's goal is to overthrow any government that does not strictly adhere to Wahabbi doctrine as he interprets it. I have little doubt that he had designs on Hussein's Iraq, but that also wouldn't preclude him from using it to his advantage in the short run.

 

[Fred Hansen]

“I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct.”

There is a reason why (reasonable, intelligent) people do not believe forgeries. It is because they are by definition falsehoods.

For example, if Ms. Knox did in fact type the "originals", then they would exist in something other than her imagination. Otherwise there would have been no way for Mr. Burkett to know - to 100% accuracy as you put it - what they contained some three decades later. And if Mr. Burkett had access to those "originals" that Ms. Knox typed, then he could have used said "originals" instead of creating forgeries. He did not, and no reasonable person would accept his contention that he ever had any "originals" of those imaginary memos. Nor would any reasonable person believe the wholly unsworn testimony (told to Dan Rather, the facilitator who brought the forgeries to network television, AND presented them as truth) of a dotty old Democrat who claims to have typed them when she admits that she cannot produce them.

Not to mention that no reasonable person would believe that said 86 year old would remember (with 100% accuracy, as you contend) one or two of several tens of thousands of documents that she typed over the course of a lifetime, much less believe that she could speak to the veracity of their contents. President Bush was at that time a junior grade officer. Ask any one that has actually served in the military and they will tell you that junior grade officers and enlisted personnel are about a nickle a dozen. Nobody remembers who they are or what they did unless they actually SERVED with them.

But of course in the liberal world everyone would have remembered 2nd Lt. Bush in the early 70s because a good liberal Democrat like Ms. Knox would have just "felt" that it would be important some day.

The "originals" could be said to be 100% accurate if in fact they existed. So far at least they do not.

Now you can ask us to believe that Mr. Bukett's story of his covert op to gain the "originals", make bad forgeries of them, fax the forgeries, and subsequently burn the "originals" in the Kinko's parking lot. It is after all a free country. But I for one am going to LMAO.

Others are welcome to believe, or not believe them. They just have to understand that the position they take on the issue will effect the level of credibility they'll be afforded by others.

 

[gburner]

Bounty,
Posts that are salted with strident language, vulgarities and thinly veiled threats don't really lend creedence to your position. In fact, I believe that it would have the directly opposite effect on most members.
No one has outright called you a liar. We have suggested that your perspective is mistaken, your point of view skewed and your documentation suspect. Yet we get, "Calling me a liar will not end well for you". What, exactly, do you mean by this? Are we to be in fear for our personal safety? I consider this a direct threat.

Before you answer, think long and hard about what you will say...and try the decaf.

 

[TheBluesMan]

This has gone on long enough. Closed for general incivility.

As always, feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this action.

-Dave