From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Sun 17 Nov 2002 - 04:44:33 GMT
Hi, Grant,
Yes, I have seen the full transcript of this latest tape from bin Laden. I
think we can agree that he is NOT saying that anything done to infidels is
OK. He is, for one thing, specifying not infidels, but citizens and
governments of countries that are undertaking what he views (rightly or
wrongly) as anti-Muslims acts.
Here are the excerpts as given by Reuters in today's NYT. It is a bit long
for email, and I apologize to all, but I do think that if we want to
understand the memetics of what is going on, we MUST pay attention to the
memes themselves, to what is actually being said, and not react in such a
way that we blind ourselves to the actual memes that are being enunciated.
Thank you for your patience.
Best regards,
Lawry
-------
(start)
Following are excerpts from an audiotape broadcast in Arabic this week by Al
Jazeera and attributed to Osama bin Laden, as recorded and translated by
Reuters.
From the worshiper of God, Osama bin Laden, to the people of the countries
that are allied with the unjust American government: the road to safety
starts with stopping aggression, and it is only fair to establish equal
treatment.
The events since the New York and Washington raids until today - such as the
killing of Germans in Tunisia and the French in Karachi, the blowing up of
the French supertanker in Yemen, the killing of the Marines in the island of
Failaka, the killing of the British and Australians in Bali, the recent
operation in Moscow, and other operations here and there - were only
reactions based on equal treatment.
They were carried out by pious Muslims defending their religion and heeding
God's orders and those of his Prophet. . . .
What Bush, the pharaoh of the time, is doing by killing Iraqis, and what
America's ally Israel is doing by bombing houses over the heads of elderly
people, women and children using American planes, should have been enough
for the wise among your leaders to abandon this gang of criminals.
Our brethren in Palestine have been subjected to killings and torture for
about a century. But when we defend them, the world was shocked and formed a
coalition against Muslims under the false banner of fighting terrorism. . .
.
Why should your governments ally themselves with America? Rumsfeld, the
butcher of Vietnam, killed two million people, not to mention those wounded.
What caused your governments to join America in attacking us in Afghanistan?
I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Canada and
Australia.
We had warned Australia about its participation in Afghanistan. . . . It
ignored the warning until it woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali.
If it upsets you to look at your casualties and those of your allies in
Tunisia, Karachi, Moscow, Bali and Amman, then remember the children killed
in Palestine and Iraq every day and remember our casualties in Khost and
those killed purposely in Afghan weddings. If it upsets you to look at those
killed in Moscow, remember those killed in Chechnya.
Until when would killing and destruction . . . be our share, while security,
stability and happiness are yours? This is unfair, and it is high time that
we stand on equal ground. As you kill, you will be killed, and as you bomb,
you will be bombed.
Here is the Muslim nation throwing its sons at you. Those who vowed to God
to continue the holy struggle with words and weapons so that right prevails
and wrong is destroyed as long as their hearts beat. . . .
(end)
--------
-----Original Message-----
From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
Grant Callaghan
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 10:37 PM
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: RE: The terrorism meme
>
>Grant, I must challenge you again, I'm afraid. You said "He feels
>anything
>done to the
>infidel is justified, and says as much in words and deeds." Let's leave
>aside the deeds as they are subject to interpretation, as our earlier
>discussion demonstrated. So: to the words: What words has bin Laden said
>that state that 'he feels anything {sic] done to the infidel is justified.'
>I have been reading quite a bit of bin Laden material, and haven't seen
>anything like this at all. It would be especially helpful if you could give
>actual examples (one would do!) of these words, rather than arguing by
>inference.
>
>Cheers,
>Lawry
Lawry,
How about this:
The audiotape was aired alongside an old photograph of the al-Qaida leader,
but there was no new video of him. The official in Washington said further
technical analysis was needed. Al-Jazeera said it received the tape on the
day it was broadcast.
Speaking in a literary style of Arabic favored by bin Laden, the voice said
the attacks were "undertaken by sons who are zealous in the defense of their
religion."
The speaker then castigated U.S. allies that have joined the war against
terrorism, specifically Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and
Australia.
After listing those countries, he warned: "If you don't like looking at your
dead . . . so remember our dead, including the children in Iraq."
"What business do your governments have to ally themselves with the gang of
criminality in the White House against Muslims? Don't your governments know
that the White House gang is the biggest serial killers in this age?"
* * *
I can't find a full transcript of the tape, but I have read reports that he
praised the bombing in Bali, as well as the American embassies in Kenya,
etc. In those bombings, many innocent people of many countries and faiths
were killed and the killers were praised for doing it. They were "zealous
in the defense of their religion."
So while I can't find words that he that mirror exactly what I claim he
advocates, it seems to me the evidence of what he praises makes it as clear
is if he stated it directly. If I said you are a hero for killing men,
women and children who are not of your religion, would you get the idea that
I don't care what you do to such people?
I think demanding that people state exactly what their intention and mind
set is before you believe it is too much to ask, since he is speaking in a
language that we are not equipped to interpret and have to depend on what
other say he meant. But to my mind actions speak louder than words and to
ignore them because the words aren't available to mirror them is to ignore
reality.
If I steal your wallet and then say, "I'm not a thief." which would you
believe, my actions or my words? What did the jury believe about Wynona
Rider when she denied being a thief? The people bin Laden helped to kill by
training and supporting their terrorist activities are a stronger statement
than anything he can say pro or con. And in every case he justifies it by
citing his religious convictions. If you want to deny the evidence or find
excuses for it, that's fine. You're entitled. But my opinion is mine and
have no reason to feel it is not justified. I don't require anyone else to
share it. I'm not going to ask you to change yours, whether I agree with it
or not.
Cheers,
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 17 Nov 2002 - 04:39:17 GMT