This is what WaPo forefronts in the article headlined "Bin Laden’s last stand: In final months, terrorist leader worried about his legacy," but if you keep reading to the very end, you'll see that the main image problem that troubled him was false oaths:
When Pakistani American Faisal Shahzad tried to detonate a car bomb in New York’s Times Square in May 2010, his attempt, widely hailed by jihadists, drew a surprising rebuke from bin Laden, who took a rare break from his self-imposed seclusion in central Pakistan to denounce Shahzad.
It wasn’t the prospect of civilian deaths that upset bin Laden, but rather the fact that Shahzad had planned the act after swearing a loyalty oath to the United States as a newly naturalized citizen.
“You know it is not permissible to tell such a lie to the enemy,” bin Laden wrote... Complaining of the “negative effects” to al-Qaeda’s image, bin Laden noted that jihadists already were under suspicion in parts of the world for “reneging on oaths, and perfidy.”
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
It made sense to him.
Well, oath-breaking is serious business. It's why traitors are reviled above and beyond common criminals. Makes perfect sense to me.
"terrorist leader worried about his legacy"
Quoting Garrison Keilor (on unwed pregnancy): "If you didn't want to go to St. Paul, why did you get on the train?"
Him and Willie, always worried about their legacy.
Didn't the Persians try something like that and Alexander came up with a strategy called "get out of the way" that worked pretty well?
PS There was a post here some months ago about him telling the kids this was no way to live your life.
Get a haircut and some nice threads, go to the West and get an education, get a real job and find a nice girl, he said. Somehow, it seems he was starting to wake up.
Too bad he couldn't have been spared to impart this vital message to the Occupiers.
Is somebody trying to convince us Osama Bin Laden was a bad man?
Having an old world mindset, Bin Laden overestimated how much we value oaths here in the United States, for example, the President's oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thinking about this makes sense. Bin Laden's attacks were almost always at symbols of American Hegemony with people being collateral damage. It worked, though probably not in the way he expected.
@Mitchell: Or to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Honor among thieves.
Any truth to the rumor Bin Laden was considering changing his outfit's name to forward???
The most basic disadvantage of a decentralized management structure.
I hear Osama began to mellow on gays in later days.
From the "Sheepskin Tales" of Bin Laden?
An oath is taken to prove some fact or report, or to relate the same with emphasis. There are four kinds of oaths:
1. Wajib (Obligatory).
When does it become Wajib (obligatory) to swear?
It is Wajib to take an oath in a situation where one’s life or honour, or that of another Muslim, is in danger, and taking the oath can ward off the danger. When it is Wajib to protect ones property it is also Wajib to take an oath for its protection. In fact in all the above situations it is Wajib even to take a false oath, although as a precautionary measure one should first try ones best to employ Toriya (A kind of trickery or deception with is only technically not a lie).
I think OBL was employing Toriya.
Human lawnmower? Had he been watching Army of Darkness? (Starting at 2:00 mark)
“You know it is not permissible to tell such a lie to the enemy,” bin Laden wrote... Complaining of the “negative effects” to al-Qaeda’s image, bin Laden noted that jihadists already were under suspicion in parts of the world for “reneging on oaths, and perfidy.”
Aw poor old Osama.... and yet the 15 WTC murderers went to strip joints, drank, whored around, but that was ok right Osama? Did they still get their 72 virgins?
You know Romney would not have killed Bin Laden. He would have brought him back in chains and, I hope, crucified him (kind of like the EPA.. but for real.)
And to bad he wasn't buried here cause I'd be in line to piss on his grave.
Breaking MSNBC News..
Osama Bin Laden Killed a Year Ago Today.
I'm not kidding.
Who was killed? Osama? Is that the Obama uncle who taught Barack that eating animals gives your their powers?
Then of course OBL was caught with his pants down and a house full of porn. Did wonders for his image among the jihadists as well.
bin Laden noted that jihadists already were under suspicion in parts of the world for “reneging on oaths, and perfidy.”
=================
And this is the mark of a leader with a brain, trying to manage a movement, foul as the Jihadis are.
Momements, terrorist or not, need internal discipline and rules. Otherwise "the sea of people they swim is" will see them as without honor and code...as treacherous oath-breakers willing to betray the people they must rely on to support their efforts.
Al Qaeda took major hits in public opinion when they failed to stop lone wolves like Zarkawi from friendish killing of brother Muslims, blowing up formalized Saudi "guests" at workers compounds, bombing Muslim marketplaces and weddings. By taking Takfir, the approved Muslim deception rules...into formal oath-breaking before the eyes of God.
Mandela had ANC terrorists who broke orders killed or punished. Same with the Irgun leaders, Mao, Tito, Jomo Kenyatta. Hitler had his Night of the Long Knives.
Part of the struggle between Stalin and the Jewish Bolsheviks was over communist jewish leaders desire to have international revolutions with No Rules, and Stalin's desire to have rules and norms when it came to advancing socialist progressivism. Stalin did not want repeats of Bela Cohen. Which made the Soviet Union itself quite bloody as dissention in the communist ranks was stamped out - but overseas - the Soviets were good to their word on formal contracts, not stirring up the natives in colonial powers. Stalin needed considerable help from Western forces to bring Russia into the 20th century and to become a stong nation in technology, industry, education. That couldn't happen with a out of control revolutionary COMITERN spreading death and revolt through the WEst and their colonial empires. Comminism would spread, Stalin agreed, but only with carefully selected targets.
Bin Laden had read from the revolutionary's handbook of what works, and what does not.
But by starting the general war with the West that Stalin wisely avoided, bin Laden lost control of supervising, disciplining, and communicating with his cadres.
Long before we killed him, Bush and company shut him down as a hands-on leader. To communicate was only at the risk of death to Binnie, al-Zawahiri..and they knew it.
Bin Laden, may he rot in hell for all eternity, worried that the unwashed masses might bring murder to a gut wrenching classless art. Why, he wanted to make sure that he kept his high profile murder attacks pure and true to the tenets of Allah's will instead. It's all about the planes and the bombs, not cheap horror movie props. My what a terrible dilemma he had to ponder
Cedarford, glad I came back to read your last comment before I shut this thread down.
OK, so then I wondered exactly WHY I would shut this thread down when there might be some excellent dialogue coming out of your comment.
Open thread again.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा