Introduction P.1:

There are several reasons why bin Laden's tape, which apparently is authentic, might have been issued. First, it could be an attempt to regain control over the jihadist movement. The conspicuous absence of bin Laden seems to have shifted funding and support toward Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who leads the jihadist movement in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi is seen as actively engaging the aggressor forces on a daily basis, while bin Laden waits secured somewhere in South or Central Asia, far from the fray. Stepping back into the spotlight, and claiming both responsibility for attacks in Europe and the potential to attack in the United States, returns bin Laden back to a higher status - a leader whose power is not confined to the Muslim world but extends into the "heartland" of the enemy.

Bin Laden's truce offer, too, is a way to reinforce his legitimacy and control over the jihadist forces. There probably is no expectation on his part that the United States would actually agree to a truce. But no one can offer a truce unless they can control their own forces and keep to their side of the bargain. This is the impression bin Laden could be attempting to create: that he retains control, that he is the man in charge.

Another interesting aspect of the tape is its timing, coming so soon after the strike in Pakistan that reportedly killed three mid-ranking al Qaeda operatives. The U.S. strike is believed to have been an attempt to hit al-Zawahiri himself. The release of an audiotape featuring bin Laden's voice, then, could be intended as reassurance to supporters that al Qaeda's top leadership remains intact and that the United States is not capable of taking out the leaders.

This is not to say the tape was actually produced in response to the strike -- al Qaeda has not shown the ability to make and release a tape that quickly, and the risk of recording and delivering a new tape would be too great after the apparent near-miss for al-Zawahiri. Rather, the recording was made prior to the airstrike but broadcast afterward. This, then, raises another question: When did the tape begin its trip to Al Jazeera's offices?

And this may be the real mystery. What is the route that such tapes take? How long does it take to deliver them? How are they produced? What risks are entailed in delivery -- both for those who carry the tapes and for those who make them? And what is the real shape of the relationship between the tape makers and Al Jazeera? Knowing this could yield significant insights into the mindset of bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization. If the tape's journey was only a matter of a few days -- beginning its trek to Al Jazeera after the Pakistan bombings -- it would mean something different than if the tape was already en route before the Pakistan attack.

There is one more significant element to the tape: the threat of attacks in the United States. It would make little sense to publicly warn of an imminent attack, however, if an attack is truly imminent -- doing so only raises the readiness and defense levels of the potential target. Thus, the only concrete conclusion that can be drawn from Thursday's revelations is that someone has decided it is important to demonstrate that bin Laden is alive.

 

Enter Blum

On Wednesday author William Blum existed only on the fringes of the publishing industry with, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower,” ranking No. 205,763 on Amazon’s booklist list. When on his above tape on Thursday, bin Laden’s briefly made mention of ‘Rogue State’, the next morning it ranked No. 35 on Amazon, only just behind Harry Potter!

Living in his small Connecticut Avenue apartment, Blum was delighted to learn about his newfound profitability. “Oh my God,” the author exclaimed, wearing his morning slippers as he scribbled the Amazon statistics on a pad of paper. “I must tell my publisher.”

Then the phone rang. It was a producer for National Public Radio, who wanted to book him on a show. The Times of London and the New York Post had called minutes earlier. Then Christopher Dickey, of Newsweek, was on the line from Paris. A moment later, a reporter for the Washington Post style section. “That’s the Washington Post,” Blum said, after hanging up the phone. “They will not print any of my letters ever, but now they are sending over a man to interview me.” The phone rang again. The Post wanted to send a photographer. “Oh boy,” said Blum, who wore a loose-fitting plaid shirt. “This is very new.
It’s easy enough to see why bin Laden chose Blum – despite the fact that Blum is the child of Jewish immigrants from Poland. In the first line of “Rogue State,” Blum writes, “Washington’s war on terrorism is as doomed to failure as its war on drugs has been.” This fits securely into the singular theme that Blum has pursued through four books. “The U.S. government does not mean well. It doesn’t care whether it does good or bad,” he explained. “The second lesson is that anti-American terrorists are not motivated at all by things cultural. It’s what we do. It’s American foreign policy.”

He arrived in Washington in the 1960s, an avowed anti-communist with dreams of joining the Foreign Service. But his State Department career was cut short after he became a leader in the local protests against the Vietnam War. He later founded a short-lived alternative magazine called the Washington Free Press, which he admits in retrospect was not Pulitzer quality. “The others thought that editing was bourgeois,” he said. The Free Press folded in 1970, and Blum began traveling the world, living in Chile during the presidency of Salvador Allende, in Germany and in England. His wife, whom he is separated from, still lives in Germany with their 24-year-old son. He published his first book in 1986, “The CIA: A Forgotten History,” which received back-cover blurbs from Gore Vidal and Oliver Stone.

“Rogue State” was originally published before the attacks of Sept. 11. Bin Laden, perhaps lacking a fact-checking department or easy access to a library, actually never quoted from that book. In his video, he used words from one of Blum’s later works, “Freeing the World to Death.” The inaccurate citation doesn’t bother Blum, who stands behind the writing that caught bin Laden’s eye: “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently,” reads the section quoted in part by the world’s most notorious terrorist. “I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism.” In that passage, Blum goes on to explain that he would end American support for Israel and reduce the military budget by 90 percent. “That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House,” Blum writes.

 

P.2, also on his shelf, the Qur'an

Normally the following would not be seen as a valid defense and would raise questions about the Qur'an and Hadith. But because such books in contrast to for example Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ (that nowhere even, spells out such violent acts like the Qur'an and Hadith do) are above criticism, hence to note their content is still far off the radar in Britain and elsewhere.

With the unstated premise here being that there cannot possibly be any hate in the Qur'an, from the TimesOnline today.

COPIES of the Koran were handed to the jurors in the Abu Hamza trial yesterday as his defence argued that some of the cleric’s “offensive” statements were drawn directly from Islam’s holy book.
The defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion: “It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.”

(Why then, if he was preaching from the Qur'an, it just only seemed as if he was preaching murder?)

The defense further said that all the great monotheistic religions had scriptures that contained “the language of blood and retribution”.

No, Fitz. I challenge you, and I challenge the world, to produce any verse of the Bible that remotely corresponds to either one of these.

2:216 says: "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
And 9:111 : "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain..."
(This verse is used as a rationale for suicide bombing.)

As to Abu Hamza’s remarks, which the prosecution alleges amount to an attempt to stir up racial hatred against the Jewish people, the defense reiterated with, a reference to the Hadith -- sayings of the Prophet Muhammad -- in which fighting between Jews and Muslims is predicted.

The Hadith says that the trees will call out to the Muslims “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”.

In other words, is the defense team agreeing that killing the infidel is not hateful, it's what good Muslims should do, plus that it is admissible to use the Qur'an's texts in the defense of Jihadists but is "religious hate crime" to use it in the prosecution of the above?

For updates click homepage here