I predict another bin Laden message

Friday, November 11, 2005
Bin Laden may be the head of al Qaeda, but without his lieutenants and mid-level managers who have been killed or captured, he is ineffective. He has no control over strategy. The low-level groups claiming allegiance are simply lashing out, flailing about, with no direction.

Of the two, Zawahiri and bin Laden, Zawahiri advocates for attacks in the muslim world proper, specifically in the Middle East. Zarkawi, though not in constant direct contact, does have intermittent correspondence with Zawahiri and is spreading out from Iraq (where he is losing, though still causing death and destruction) to other areas in the Levant.

Bin Laden, on the other hand, wants the West attacked.

When Osama gets the word that thousands of Jordanians (backed by Islamist groups, no less!) protested against Zarqawi and called for him to burn in hell, he will throw up his hands and scream 'NO!'. Zarqawi is turning muslims against us. We must go back to attacking the West!

And he will issue a proclamation, some kind of message, for Zarqawi's ears.

The period since just before the November election in 2004 is the longest bin Laden has ever remained silent. I think the 'record' before now was eleven months.

Depending on how long it takes to get his message out, I predict we will be hearing from bin Laden soon! He will try desparately to get back some control.

You read it here first!

37 comments:

markg8 said...

Hmmmm...you sure seem to know a lot about Al Qaeda's inner workings.

Syl said...

Mark

Are you admitting that you don't? And that all your posturing is based on nothing at all?

Hmmmmmm....

markg8 said...

I don't claim to know what any branch of Al Qaeda plans are for the future. If you have some inside knowledge I suggest you contact the proper authorities.

I do have a pretty good grasp of human nature and what I read in the papers.

Syl said...

and what I read in the papers

There's your problem right there. If you want to read the writings of bin laden, zawahiri, and zarqawi you need the internet.

Come back when you're more informed.

markg8 said...

Splitting hairs aren't we? I of course read papers on the net except for the Philadelphia Inquirer which I have delivered to my home.

Do you read Arabic syl? If not what makes you think you can read what Bin Laden or other high ranking Al Qaeda members think on the internet?

Pastorius said...

Syl,
Good analysis, but I think it is very likely Bin Laden really is dead.

Pastorius said...

Mark G8,
So, you think the translation of Bin Laden's speeches is done wrong? Do you think our government, and the other Western governments do that on purpose?

markg8 said...

I think key phrases are cherry picked to fit the agendas of whoever is translating it.

Consider Bin Laden's missive before last year's election. On leftist websites you could read it as support for Bush's re-election and on rightwing sites as an endorsement for Kerry.

Frankly I don't think he found much of a difference between the two
and barring a surprise write in victory for Allah he'd continue to advocate for attacks on the "infidels".

Pastorius said...

Mark G8,
Well then, she can read what Bin Laden says on the internet, because it's there. Naturally, everyone is going to have their own way of seeing things. However, we are not completely in the dark about things. If Bin Laden warns us that we are infidels, and that there will be attacks on us and our allies, we know what he means.

Unless you are an absolute postmodernist, and don't believe you can understand anything, in which case you might as well not read anything at all.

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

Mook,
I understand you are linguistically challenged,but what part of the phrase, "I predict" do you fail to understand?

Why ask an assinine question like this? "If you have some inside knowledge I suggest you contact the proper authorities".

You have been predicting events in Iraq like some demented shaman high on peyote.

markg8 said...

Despite the "I predict" her post read more like it was based on inside knowledge rather than gazing into a crystal ball.

Hey maybe she has access to classified information or knows a Republican senator who can't keep his mouth shut.

Peter UK said...

"Hey maybe she has access to classified information or knows a Republican senator who can't keep his mouth shut."

If YOU have any information on this Mark Garrity you should take it to the proper authorities.
Nah! Being a leftoid you'd be spilling your guts in Kos's outhouse this minute.

Syl said...

Peter

Mark is just troll. He is ill-informed and only comments for the hell of it. His arguments, such as they are, are at the level of a seven-year-old. He probably doesn't even vote.

I think my posting scared him, actually. LOL

markg8 said...

Scared me? I'm not the one who'd have to look around for a new boogeyman to scare to the Americian public with if Bin Laden stumnbled into a Pakistani patrol in North Waziristan.

Once again explain to me why we don't go after him. Are we afraid of Musharraf? If so why?

Peter UK said...

Syl,
But you might be a covert agent,Mark Garrity is trying to out you.

Syl said...

Peter

LOL

If he 'outs' me, he will only be outing my undercover cover for my covert cover of clandestine activity.

:)

Peter UK said...

Syl,
Just goes to show where his principles lie.

markg8 said...

Your alleged covert status aside you still haven't answered the question, why we don't go after him. Are we afraid of Musharraf? If so why?

Note the question marks Petey? They are punctuation marks we use in English to denote questions.

Knucklehead said...

It doesn't matter much whether bin Laden is dead or bin Languishing in the sick bay aboard some Saudi gillionaire shieks 300 ft. yacht. Some salafist somewhere will use either his words or his name to attempt to establish control of The International Muderers Coalition and Syl's dividing line of "attack within the Levant" or "attack the West" seems a pretty accurate place to draw such a line.

They will need to sort out whether they want to continue, Zarqawi-like, with mass murder everwhere and anywhere possible, all forms of infidels including the "wrong kinds of muslims" or if they want to be more selective in their targetting.

When the communique comes forth, Syl, remind us that you predicted it.

Pastorius said...

Knucklehead,
I agree. Like I said, I think Syl's analysis was great. I just think Bin Laden is likely dead. So, the argument will take place, and yes, the public announcement will likely come, but I don't think it will come from Bin Laden.

Just as when a President dies in the middle of a war, Al Qaeda will simply appoint a new leader.

markg8 said...

So it's "we don't care if he's dead or alive" instead of we're gonna get him dead or alive?

I thought all those translators pretty firmly established that it was Osama's voice on those tapes. You'd think Bush would want his head on a pike to shore up his poll numbers now that he's sunk to 36% approval ratings in the latest FOX News, yes that's FOX News poll.

terrye said...

mark:

Considering the number of times the Democrats let Osama get away I really don't think partisan politcs are going to work for you here. After all Bill Clinton was president when Osama made his famous fatwa saying that Muslims should kill Americans whereever they found them.

BTW, if you have some inside knowledge about the socalled Republican Senator that leaked I suggest you take it to the authorities yourself.

It is interesting how hard Republicans are on each other though, hell Democrats help each other bury the bodies. Must be that honor among thieves thing.

As for Osama I think he is probably dead and has been for some time. But it is about time for the mythic creature to crawl out from under his rock and make some kind of announcement. Even if it is the dead speaking.

Peter UK said...

Two problems here Mook.
One is that the question isn't in English,it is in Mookian gibberish.

"haven't answered the question, why we don't go after him. Are we afraid of Musharraf? If so why?"
It is why "don't we go after him".
Still in grade school at 49?

Two.
You are asking a question based on an assumption.very much in the nature of "Mark Garrity when did you stop having unnatural relations with your pig"

markg8 said...

Seriously I'm asking a question. Why doesn't Bush go after Bin Laden? It can't be because he doesn't want to outshine Bill Clinton.

Not so seriously I don't talk to Republican Senators, as Petey might say they're icky.

Syl said...

Seriously I'm asking a question

Seriously?

Ask Bush.

Or else do your own homework. This isn't remedial al Qaeda class.

Syl said...

Knuck

Zarqawi could claim the mantle. But it doesn't really matter.

It's the leadership just under the top that is important. We've been extraordinarily successful at killing and capturing them.

That's why bin laden is powerless.

And we're doing the same to Zarqawi's gang.

They end up with a head and a bunch of underlings who don't know what they're doing because we eliminate the operational middle that has the knowledge base, the technical know-how, and the tactical smarts.

And making the mistakes they do, these flailabout underlings only hurt the cause.

Peter UK said...

Is this a remedial course in logic for Mark Garrity?
He asks "Why doesn't Bush go after bin Laden"

This begs the question,in simple terms so Mook can understand,how does Mook know that he isn't?

Does Mark Garrity have some information that should be given to the proper authorities?

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

Mook
"Petey might say they're icky."

Never use the term,plenty of good Anglo-saxon alternatives.

I think you are thinking of "thicky" as in Mook is a bit of a thicky.

Do you in fact get to speak to any Senators of any political hue,I can't quite see you fitting in at Hyannisport,well except for parking the cars.

markg8 said...

Hey you got a good one off.

"I can't quite see you fitting in at Hyannisport,well except for parking the cars."

That one was actually funny. You know what they say about blind squirrels.

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

Mook,
It's just a matter of pitching down to your level.
Takes time I've never worked somebody as stupid before.

gumshoe1 said...

"...You'd think Bush would want his head on a pike to shore up his poll numbers now that he's sunk to 36% approval ratings in the latest FOX News, yes that's FOX News poll."
-markg8

Clinton's poll
numbers stayed pretty
high right thru the
whole Monica/Paula Jones thing,
didn't they?

did they bother to take a poll
after he pardoned Marc Rich?

"Note the question marks Petey?
They are punctuation marks we use in English to denote questions."
-markg8

'Unless you are an absolute postmodernist, and don't believe you can understand anything, in which case you might as well not read anything at all.'
-Pastorius

if not in fact,indeed in spirit,
Mr. g8 answered your query
Pastorius,with the quote
right above it.

he's already made up his mind,
doesn't intend to change it,
and doesn't get that nobody here
is interested in his bilge.

but he's gotta vent somewhere,
and what he brings to the table
just doesn't stand out over at Kos
or DU.

m2c.

markg8 said...

Hell I dunno did they take a poll gumshoe? Be my guess that in November 2000 Clinton would have won a three way vote with Gore and Bush hands down. I know I would have voted for him. As for Marc Rich, once again wasn't his lawyer Scooter Libby? Seriously, go look it up.

gumshoe1 said...

figures.
the 8 year old would want his
pal,the other 8 year old
back in the WH.

if your luck holds,
you'll get to vote for his nanny.

i'm aware Libby was Rich's atty.
Clinton pardoned the man,for pay.

Peter UK said...

Gumshoe,
That's it ,that's the level, guilt by association,nursery school stuff.