"In Saudi Arabia, it is the king and not Allah who commands sovereignty and complete obedience.." In a new audio tape posted on the Web (which is more reliable than Aljazeera as a means of distribution), Osama bin Laden laid out his case against the "kleptocratic and apostate monarchy" in Saudi Arabia. This follows on the heels of the attack on the US consulate in Jeddah. Both attacks are part of the psychological "shaping" of the Saudi Arabian battlespace and al Qaeda's new role as the provider strategic guidance for the insurgency (Zarqawi's organization, recently "officially" acquired by al Qaeda, provides operational goals in Iraq). This leadership isn't directive in nature, but rather by one of example and influence.
UPDATE: Osama also urged global guerrilla operations against strategic oil networks: "Take jihad [holy war] to stop [the Americans] getting hold of [the oil]. Concentrate your operations on the oil, in particular in Iraq and the Gulf."
Why is the Net a more reliable means of distribution than Al Jazeera? Not that I don't believe you, just that I don't see your reasoning there.
Posted by: Ben | Friday, 17 December 2004 at 06:27 PM
If I might offer a suggestion, in reply to Ben, it seems that when something like a video or audio clip of international interest gets on the internet it makes the world-wide rounds, so to speak, very quickly thanks to people linking, mirroring and sharing across the globe.
This happens too when something is released through the media, but thats just an extra step which takes more time before the spread begins, and which may be delayed by other items/issues the news source in question decides are better to "lead" with for the day.
With the internet once something gets uploaded and people start linking, mirroring and swapping it around, theres no way to stop it - it will keep circling forever, reaching a greater number of people faster initially, and also over the long term (on the net things keep around for years, the news media doesnt/cant keep putting out the same stuff.)
Posted by: Morgan | Saturday, 18 December 2004 at 02:53 PM
Thanks Morgan, that was great. There are some more practical reasons. It is likely that either 1) AJ came under pressure to avoid its activities as a direct conduit for al Qaeda, 2) the chain of custody of audio/video deliveries to AJ was compromised by US security forces, or 3) the ISI finally buckled to US pressure and halted their tacit support for the process.
Posted by: John Robb | Saturday, 18 December 2004 at 04:34 PM