War Without End

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:16 pm; edited 29 times in total

Gorilla in the room is US support of Israel:

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html

http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/09/no-other-motivation-no-other.html

http://www.9-11pdp.org/ua/2005-08-02.htm (click on the transcript PDF link and scroll down to the 'Q & A' session)

Poisonous Misinterpretations :

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=6720

Western aggression fuels fanaticism:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/07/25/western-aggression-fuels-fanaticism.php

Dealing with the core of Mideast Terror

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/07/25/dealing-with-the-core-of-mideast-terror.php

http://www.representativepress.org/foreignpolicies.html

Tragic 9/11 Attack Happened because of US support of Israel:

I hope you get a chance to watch that Los Angeles Times (war on terror) reporter Terry McDermott affirming what was mentioned (during the 'Covering War' panel on C-SPAN 2) about US support of Israel being the main reason for the tragic 9/11 attack as James Bamford conveys on pages 98-102 and 138-144 of his 'A Pretext for War' book which was mentioned as well (you might want to watch - via the links at the following URL - the panels with Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington as they were apparently too cowardly to discuss the Likudnik -JINSA/CSP/PNAC - Neocons who pushed the Iraq war on US for their beloved Israel):

http://www.booktv.org/misc/la_festival_043005.asp#saturday

Los Angeles Times 'War on Terror' reporter Terry McDermott got the following mention about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed planning the 9/11 World Trade Center attack because of US support of Israel from page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report (version which was/is sold at stores):

Forwarded:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040725012414/http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

THE MASTERMIND

U.S. policy on Israel key motive for effort

PLOTTER INVOLVED BIN LADEN TO GAIN MORE RESOURCES

By Terry McDermott

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.

Mohammed conceived the initial outline of the attack six years before its execution and brought the plan to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden because he thought he did not have the resources to carry it out on his own.

The Sept. 11 report contains the fullest accounting of Mohammed's overarching role from original conception to supervision of details. Bin Laden, too, was fully involved, selecting all or most of the participants, ordering the substance and the location of their training, and contributing to the timing of the attacks and the selection of targets, the report says.

The report makes a strong case that al-Qaida accomplished the attacks without any hint of state sponsorship. The report also appears to lay to rest the notion, long alluded to by administration officials including Vice President Dick Cheney, that hijacker Mohamed Atta traveled to the Czech Republic to meet an Iraqi intelligence operative in the spring of 2001.

In addition to repeating evidence that Atta was in the United States at the time, the report revealed that the Iraqi agent was not in Prague either when the meeting was alleged to have occurred.

Much of the report's detail comes from interrogations of al-Qaida operatives in U.S. custody, including Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. Some of that information is contradictory; much of it is difficult to corroborate. One CIA analysis cited in the report, for example, is titled "Khalid Shaykh Muhammed's Threat Reporting -- Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies."

_________________

The Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1947-1948 - http://www.robincmiller.com/pales2.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is on page 101 of James Bamford's excellent new book ('A Pretext for War') as it was the letter sent to the New York Times by the terrorist (Ramzi Yousef) who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993:

" This is the Liberation Army"

The letter containing the demands was sent to The New York Times. It said
that the World Trade Center was bombed in retaliation for American support
for Israel and demanded changes in American foreign policy in the Middle
East. If the demands were not met, the letter warned, more terrorist
"missions" would be carried out against military and civilian targets
in America and abroad. It also warned that future attacks could be carried
out by "suicidal soldiers," a clear escalation in tactics.

Specifically, the letter declared:

OUR DEMANDS ARE:

1- Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel.

2- All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop.

3- Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs.

If our demands are not met, all of our functional groups in the army will
continue to execute our missions against the military and civilian targets
in and out of the United States. For your own Information, our army has more
than one hundred and fifty suicidal soldiers ready to go ahead. The terrorism that
Israel practicies(which is supported by America) must be faced with a similar one.
The dictatorship and terrorism(also supported by America) that some countries
are practicing against their own people must also be faced with terrorism.

The American people must know, that their civilians who got killed are not better
than those who are getting killed by the American weapons and support. The American
people are responsible for the actions of their government and they must question all
of the crimes thattheir government is commiting against other people.
Or they -Americans- will be the targets of our operations that could diminish them.

LIBERATION ARMY
FIFTH BATTALION

EVERY MORNING EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD READ THIS TWICE:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2004/01/22/every-morning-every-american-should-read-this-twice.php

Bin Laden (Al Qaeda) attacks the West (America) because of support for Israel:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2005/07/17/osama-bin-laden-we-hate-the-west-because-of-the-jews.php

Bush acted illegally in push for Iraq war:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/27/bush-acted-illegally-in-push-for-iraq-war.php

http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-American Protests Spread through Islamic World

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/14/anti-american-protests-spread-through-islamic-world.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forwarded:

NO US DISCUSSION OF CAUSES OF TERRORISM

Just saw this in a November 2004 BBC story, but don't recall seeing these comments in the US media. Scheuer, himself, is quite likely a Jew.

"Bin Laden is attacking us because a specific set of US policies that have been in gear for 30 years and haven't been reviewed, haven't been debated, haven't been questioned," says Mr Scheuer, (a former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit) who has written two books anonymously criticising government policies.

He cited the apparent unquestioning US support for Israel. . . .”

________________________________________________________

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4034833.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 24 November, 2004, 16:13 GMT

War on terror 'vanishes from agenda'

By Gordon Corera
BBC security correspondent

There is intense speculation in the corridors of Washington over where foreign policy might head in the next four years.

'Lack of discussion'

But Mike Scheuer, a former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit who resigned from the agency this month, says there is a dangerous lack of understanding in the United States about what motivates Bin Laden and those who support him.

After the debate, the American people would be going into the future knowing they were faced with an extraordinarily long and bloody war

Mike Scheuer,
former CIA operative

This has led some wrongly to perceive the US as fighting a single organisation when in fact it faces a global, radical Islamic insurgency.

"Bin Laden is attacking us because a specific set of US policies that have been in gear for 30 years and haven't been reviewed, haven't been debated, haven't been questioned," says Mr Scheuer, who has written two books anonymously criticising government policies.

He cited the apparently unquestioning US support for Israel; America's presence on the Arabian peninsula; and support for regimes perceived as oppressing Muslims and for Muslim "tyrannies".

Mr Scheuer doesn't necessarily argue for a change in policy but says there needs to be a greater awareness of the roots of the problem in order to appreciate the potential longevity of the threat.

"At the end of the day it may be decided by the democratic process that these policies are good for us and should remain unchanged... but the big difference would be that after the debate, the American people would be going into the future knowing they were faced with an extraordinarily long and bloody war to be fought because of those policies."

Michael Scheuer wrote (in his 'Imperial Hubris' book):

"The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its polices."

An earlier American warned:

A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.. It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country.

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Alpha · Last edited by Alpha on Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

Alpha · Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:55 am Post subject: The Anti-Conservatives...

The Anti-Conservatives...

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/19/the-anti-conservatives.php

Alpha

Israeli land grabbers to build 6,000 more Jewish homes on West Bank:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/25/israel-plans-6-000-w-bank-settlement-homes.php

Alpha · Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:14 am Post subject:

The following is from pages 100-101 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book:

" This is the Liberation Army"

The letter containing the demands was sent to The New York Times. It
said
that the World Trade Center was bombed in retaliation for American
support
for Israel and demanded changes in American foreign policy in the
Middle
East. If the demands were not met, the letter warned, more terrorist
"missions" would be carried out against military and civilian targets
in America and abroad. It also warned that future attacks could be
carried
out by "suicidal soldiers," a clear escalation in tactics.

Specifically, the letter declared:

OUR DEMANDS ARE:

1- Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel.

2- All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop.

3- Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior
affairs.

If our demands are not met, all of our functional groups in the army
will
continue to execute our missions against the military and civilian
targets
in and out of the United States. For your own Information, our army has
more
than one hundred and fifty suicidal soldiers ready to go ahead. The
terrorism that
Israel practicies(which is supported by America) must be faced with a
similar one.
The dictatorship and terrorism(also supported by America) that some
countries
are practicing against their own people must also be faced with
terrorism.

The American people must know, that their civilians who got killed are
not better
than those who are getting killed by the American weapons and support.
The American
people are responsible for the actions of their government and they
must question all
of the crimes thattheir government is commiting against other people.
Or they -Americans- will be the targets of our operations that could
diminish them.

LIBERATION ARMY
FIFTH BATTALION

Alpha

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

Last update - 01:02 06/03/2005

Illegal outposts: The rot starts at the top
Funds transfered by government ministries were used by West Bank council heads to finance illegal settlement activity
By Akiva Eldar

Attorney Talia Sasson, who is in the process of completing her report on settlers' outposts in the West Bank, has the reputation of being thorough and professional. It is likely, therefore, that she has came across a copy of a sharp letter sent in the Spring of 1997 by then-attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein to chief military prosecutor Brigadier-General Uri Shoham and Central Command commander Uzi Dayan.

It was in the days of the Netanyahu government. Rubinstein warned the senior officers of "the increasing incidents of land invasions in Judea and Samaria, by building roads, placing mobile homes and building structures."

Sasson also probably received a copy of Rubinstein's letter from the winter of 1998, complaining that not only had nothing been done since his last letter, but that the situation had become even worse. Three months later he warned Dayan of the ongoing violations of the rule of law and demanded that he act immediately to evacuate the squatters.

Rubinstein wrote that if the squatting became permanent it would enable the settlers to claim immunity under the statute of limitations, that due to the delay the structures might no longer be destroyed, thus "trampling the rule of law and holding it in contempt." The trespassers must therefore be evacuated by force while the invasion is still "fresh," he wrote.

Every illegal outpost started with a large truck hauling a trailer through the West Bank. An examination of the squatters' modus operandi must have led Sasson to the key question: Who, over the years, has instructed the IDF officers, who have complete control of the area, to permit hundreds of semi-trailer trucks to arrive unhindered at their destinations.

In August 1999 the IDF Civil Administration's legal adviser, Shlomo Politis, wrote to then-Central Command chief Moshe Ya'alon. Politis said that in the case of moving trailers to illegal outposts, one hand of the authorities did not know what the other was doing. He told Ya'alon, the commander in charge of the West Bank, of cases in which settlers who received demolition orders for illegal structures had also received permits to move the mobile structures to the same outposts. The permits were signed by the Civil Administration officer in charge of infrastructure.

The great land robbery in the West Bank

That officer was lieutenant colonel Yair Blumenthal. This week, almost six years after Politis's letter was sent, Blumenthal was arrested on suspicion of involvement in a major land scam with JNF subsidiary Himnuta. Blumenthal allegedly approved real estate deals in the West Bank while knowing that the signatures of Palestinian land owners who were "selling" their land were forged. Police suspect that Blumenthal took bribes to okay the transactions.

Chief Superintendent Eliezer Elhar of the Samaria and Judea District Police said, "I have more than a gut feeling that this is a criminal case mixed with more than a pinch of ideology."

This is not the first time that IDF officers in the territories, most of them settlers themselves, have been suspected of pursuing their own interests in the course of serving the state. For example, at the end of the `90s ten of the 29 gas stations in the territories were operating without a permit and six stations operated without a contract with their owners. The owners of 18 station owners went without paying royalties on their franchise for many years. Settler-officers are also suspected of involvement in the illegal operation of quarries in the West Bank and of selling the stone on the open market.

Sasson will probably not limit herself to denouncing small fry like Blumenthal. According to the State Comptroller's report from 2003, due to the sensitive nature of moving mobile structures to outposts, it was decided that such moves would require the approval of the defense minister's aide in charge of settlements. The comptroller found that in 2002, Yossi Vardi, aide to then-defense minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, authorized moving mobile structures before the legal status of the land in question had been determined. He did so without the approval of the Civil Administration's infrastructure head, as required by the regulations.

If Blumenthal talks to the police, he could tell them a lot about the role played by ministers and generals, whether through action or inaction, in the great land robbery in the territories.

Vardi told the State Comptroller that he had acted on the instructions of the defense minister. Ben-Eliezer, however, said he did not deal specifically with the cases mentioned in the report, and only set a general policy not to authorize acts in violation of regulations.

Ben-Eliezer and his aide were no exception. During the second half of the 90s, especially during the Netanyahu administration, settlers erected illegal buildings, invaded lands and built roads at about 200 sites. These methods continued to be used in the days of Barak and Sharon. The State Comptroller said that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz's new aide, Ron Shechner, who lives in Yatir in southern Judea, authorized funding for "security components," a code for roads, lighting, means of transportation etc., for settlements whose legal status was unclear. In other words, illegal outposts.

Shechner told the comptroller that "the Central Command's policy is to provide security for Jewish residents in settlements that are in the process of regulating their legal status."

The comptroller was not satisfied and ordered the Central Command to stop providing state funds for activities on land whose use has not been authorized or legally established.

In June 2003, Rubinstein instructed ministries to stop funneling funds to illegal outposts, especially for construction. In April 2004, a few weeks after entering office, new Attorney General Menachem Mazuz discovered that the Housing Ministry was ignoring these instructions, and imposed a freeze on all financial transfers to local authorities in the West Bank.

West Bank council heads `act like mafioso'

The findings of the two attorneys general that funds transfered by government ministries were used to finance illegal activity means West Bank council heads were responsible for violations of the law.

Dror Halevy, chairman of the movement for the separation fence, has helped start a neighborhood for veterans of combat units, just over the Green Line, in the Binyamin region. He has provided Sasson with a great deal of information on the methods and finances of the regional councils. Halevy, who has also met Interior Minister Ophir Pines-Paz and Housing Minister Isaac Herzog, told them that the council heads, who also head the local planning and construction commissions, are responsible for enforcing planning and construction laws.

Halevy said that for a head of a local planning and construction commission to authorize funds for illegal building projects is tantamount to organized crime. He said the illegal use of public funds in the territories is unparalleled. "Everyone talks about Pinchas Wallerstein's political views, forgetting that he holds public office and officially represents the state's licensing and enforcement agencies," said Halevy. Wallerstein heads the Binyamin Regional Council, in southern Samaria.

In Binyamin, entire residential neighborhoods have been financed with public funds and built without a master plan. Wallerstein says that this is acceptable practice.

Last week Halevy told Supervisor of Banks Yoav Lehman he believes that mortgage banks have transferred funds and accepted as collateral hundreds of millions of shekels worth of assets whose legal status is unclear, and may be associated with criminal acts.

Lehman told Haaretz that this is a political issue outside his authority, and although there is no evidence that it threatens the banks' stability, he ordered an examination of Halevy's complaint.

In an attempt to illustrate the incestuous nature of the settlers' ties to political power and finance, Halevy has collected material about a well-known Jerusalem attorney who specializes in construction projects in the territories. The lawyer serves as legal adviser to a planning and construction commission, supervises its inspection department and represents the regional council in contacts with entrepreneurs. He also helps set taxes and fees, and to collect them. At the same time, he represents the IDF commander in the region, as well as settlements in which there is illegal construction. He also represents companies and entrepreneurs who are constructing projects that are suspected of being illegal.

At the same time this person represents the tax collector and the tax payer, issues and obtains permits, supervises and represents regulatory bodies. In between all that, he provides legal services to the Yesha Council of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=548261

Alpha · Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:56 pm Post subject: Israel 'funded illegal outposts'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4328817.stm

Alpha

Just saw the following at www.whatreallyhappened.com:

Israeli Communications Priorities 2003
Posted Mar 10, 2005 09:12 AM PST
Category: WAR/DRAFT

Or, how to sell a war to the suckers.

http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1789

Israeli Communications Priorities 2003

ADC has obtained, and is publishing in full, a vital new Israeli propaganda strategy document for the period following the war in Iraq.

The document, entitled “Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communications Priorities 2003,” was prepared for the Wexner Foundation, which operates leadership training programs such as the “Birthright Israel” project which offers free trips for young Jewish Americans to Israel, by the public relations firm the Luntz Research Companies and the Israel Project. However, please note that the report’s suggested language is written in a distinctly Israeli, as opposed to a Jewish American, voice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEXNER ANALYSIS:
ISRAELI COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES 2003
OVERVIEW

The world has changed. The words, themes and messages on behalf of Israel must include and embrace the new reality of a post-Saddam world.

In the past, we have urged a lower profile for Israel out of a fear that the American people would blame Israel for what was happening in the rest of the Middle East. Now is the time to link American success in dealing with terrorism and dictators from a position of strength to Israel's ongoing efforts to eradicate terrorism on and within its borders. In the current political environment, you have little to lose and a lot to gain by aligning with America. With all the anti-Americanism across the globe and all the protests and demonstrations, we are looking for allies that share our commitment to security and an end to terrorism and are prepared to say so. Israel is a just such an ally.

THE NEXT STEP

The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own "road map" for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism.

Perceptions of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are being almost entirely colored and often overshadowed by the continuing action in Iraq. Partisan differences still exist (the political Left remains your problem) and complaints about Israeli heavy-handedness still exist. Advocates of Israel have about two weeks to get their message in order before world attention turns to the so-called "road map" and how best to "solve" the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Developing that message is the purpose of this memo.

Author's note: This is not a policy document. This document is strictly a communications manual. As with every memo we provide, we have used the same scientific methodology to isolate specific words, phrases, themes and messages that will resonate with at least 70% of the American audience. There will certainly be some people, particularly those on the political left, who will oppose whatever words you use, but the language that follows will help you secure support from a large majority of Americans. These recommendations are based on two "dial test" sessions in Chicago and Los Angeles conducted during the first ten days of the Iraqi war for the Wexner Foundation.

ESSENTIAL CONCLUSIONS

This document is rather long because it is impossible to communicate all that is needed in simple one-sentence sound-bites. Yes, we have provided those on the pages that follow, but we have taken the space to explain why the language is so important and the context in which it needs to be used. If you only read two pages, these are the key conclusions:

1) Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq. This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and opposition from some of our European "allies." For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people. Saddam will remain a powerful symbol of terror to Americans for a long time to come. A pro-Israeli expression of solidarity with the American people in their successful effort to remove Saddam will be appreciated.

2) Stick to your message but don't say it the same way twice. We have seen this in the past but never so starkly as today. Americans are paying very close attention to international developments and are particularly sensitive to any kind of apparent dogma or canned presentations. If they hear you repeating the exact same words over and over again, they will come to distrust your message. If your speakers can't find different ways to express similar principles, keep them off the air.

3) It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don't use George Bush as a synonym for the United States. Even with the destruction of the Hussein regime and all the positive reactions from the Iraqi people, there still remains about 20% of America that opposes the Iraqi war, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat. That leaves about half the Democrats who support the war even if they don't support George Bush. You antagonize the latter half unnecessarily every time you compliment the President. Don't do it.

4) Conveying sensitivity and a sense of values is a must. Most of the best-performing sound bites mention children, families, and democratic values. Don't just say that Israel is morally aligned with the U.S. Show it in your language. The children component is particularly important. It is essential that you talk about "the day, not long from now, when Palestinian children and Israeli children will play side-by-side as their parents watch approvingly."
5) "SECURITY" sells. Security has become the key fundamental principle for all Americans. Security is the context by which you should explain Israeli need for loan guarantees and military aid, as well as why Israel can't just give up land. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates.

6) The language in this document will work, but it will work best when it is accompanied with passion and compassion. Too many supporters of Israel speak out of anger or shout when faced with opposition. Listeners are more likely to accept your arguments if they like how you express them. They will bless these words but they will truly accept them if and only if they accept you.

7) Find yourself a good female spokesperson. In all our testing, women are found to be more credible than men. And if the woman has children, that's even better.

8) Link Iraqi liberation with the plight of the Palestinian people. It is likely that the most effective argument(s) you have right now are those that link the right of the Iraqi people to live in freedom with the right of the Palestinian people to be governed by those who truly represent them. If you express your concern for the plight of the Palestinian people and how it is unfair, unjust and immoral that they should be forced to accept leaders who steal and kill in their name, you will be building credibility for your support of the average Palestinian while undermining the credibility of their leadership.

9) A little humility goes a long way. You saw this with your own eyes. You need to talk continually about your understanding of "the plight of the Palestinians" and a commitment to helping them. Yes, this IS a double standard (no one expects anything pro-Israeli from the Palestinians) but that's just the way things are. Humility is a bitter pill to swallow, but it will inoculate you against critiques that you have not done enough for peace. Admit mistakes, but then show how Israel is the partner always working for peace.

10) Of course rhetorical questions work, don't they? Ask a question to which there is only one answer is hard to lose. It is essential that your communication be laced with rhetorical questions, which is how Jews talk anyway.

11) Mahmoud Abbas is still a question mark. Leave him that way. You stand much more to lose by attacking him now. But similarly, he is not worthy of praise. Talk about your hopes for the future, but lay out the principles you expect him to uphold: an end to violence, a recognition of Israel, reform of his own government, etc.

THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT WORDS: SADDAM HUSSEIN (STILL)

This document is about language, so let me be blunt. "Saddam Hussein" are the two words that tie Israel to America and are most likely to deliver support in Congress. They also just happen to be two of the most hated words in the English language right now.

Without being repetitive, Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its boarders. Unfortunately, as a democracy, we tend to dwell on our failures (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.) more than our successes. It is essential for the long-term support of a strong military and a commitment to national security that we remind people again and again...and again that there are times when it is necessary to take preventative action and that military intervention is better than appeasement.

A WARNING

There are some who would say that Saddam Hussein is already old news. They don't understand history. They don't understand communication. They don't understand how to integrate and leverage history and communication for the benefit of Israel. The day we allow Saddam to take his eventual place in the trash heap of history is the day we loose our strongest weapon in the linguistic defense of Israel.

References to the successful outcome of the war with Iraq benefit Israel. While Americans don't want to increase foreign aid in a time of significant budgetary deficits and painful spending cuts, there is one and only one argument that will work for continuing Israeli aid (in four easy steps):

THE ISRAELI AID MESSAGE TREE

(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.

(2) Prevention works. Even with the collapse of Saddam's regime, terrorist threats remain throughout our region.

(3) Israel is America's one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.

(4) With America's financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort in the war against terrorism.

This is important. All the arguments about Israel being a democracy, letting Arabs vote and serve in government, protecting religious freedom, etc., won't deliver the public support you need to secure the loan guarantees and the military aid Israel needs. All the language we have written in past memos will not work when it comes to U.S. tax dollars. You need a national security angle - one that clearly links the interests of both Israel and America:

WORDS THAT WORK:
SELLING ISRAEL AID (I)

"It was Israel who risked their pilots and planes in taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactors and thus thwarted his quest for nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

It was Israel who provided much of the intelligence that helped America defeat Iraq back in 1991.

It was Israel alone among Middle Eastern nations that supported America's successful effort to remove Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq.

We stood without you against the Saddam regime from beginning to end. Israel has been a key regional asset and military ally of the United States for more than 50 years. That relationship must continue, even and especially in the post-Saddam era. It is a partnership of democracies devoted to the war against terrorism and the fight for freedom."

As we have seen, the news cycle during and immediately following a war is is not a matter of idle curiosity, it is compulsory viewing. Even more than in Israel, where conflict has tragically been almost commonplace, war means a new and real threat to personal and familial security in America. And Saddam Hussein, dead or alive, still embodies that threat.

Americans have been thinking and talking about the war on terror for almost a year and a half now, and they have come to conclude that Saddam Hussein is a sponsor of world terror and is a particular threat to the democracies of the world. New and shocking revelations about the brutality of his regime are discovered daily, which only reinforces American support of military action. But the fact that Hussein was a direct threat to Israel is especially important. Israel opposed his cruel ambitions for decades - a decade longer than the U.S. Remind audiences that Israel and America have common values, but then stress that we also share common enemies.

But deterrence is only half the message. You really do need to emphasize your historic willingness to compromise and sacrifice on behalf of America. This may not play well among some Israeli politicians but it will certainly play extremely well in the States.

WORDS THAT WORK

"During the Gulf War, Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles 39 times. Israel stood by each time, not knowing if the next missile contained biological and chemical weapons. Israel chose restraint instead of war, because it was what the U.S. asked. It was Israel's way to support our ally, America, and its troops during the Persian Gulf War. We put supporting American priorities higher than our own. But now, with our national security at stake, we need America's financial help."

RESPONDING TO PALESTINIAN PRESSURE

While the Chicago and Los Angeles sessions yielded significant new language and several new communication "principles," most of our previous observations hold true. Too many in the Jewish community are too linguistically hostile at a time when the other 97% of America wants a resolution to the conflict. In particular, you cannot just issue recriminations, however justified, against the Palestinian Authority and expect American elites to be suddenly convinced of your righteousness. All the evidence and common sense can be on your side, but the hostility and negativity will be rejected as biased and one-sided.

Here's a specific example:

WORDS THAT DON'T WORK

"There is no moral equivalency. On one side you have duly elected and appointed Israeli officials from a democracy that has been operating for more than half a century. On the other side you have corrupt Palestinian officials who have lied, cheated and stolen from their people. Israel will not negotiate until they have someone to negotiate with."

While the statement above is perfectly accurate and justified, it will not work. Individually, the words are good, the facts are accurate and the message is correct. But this communication effort fails miserably because it is regarded as a complete rejection of negotiations and peace. Listeners see it as accusatory and contentious - exactly what they don't want to hear and will not accept. We have a better approach, one that says virtually the same thing but in a more effective way:

WORDS THAT DO WORK

"Whatever the root causes of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis, there are certain tragic cultural facts and differences that stand in the way of peace negotiations between the people of Israel and the Palestinians. No Israeli child has ever strapped a bomb to his back and gone off to kill civilian Palestinians, and yet the Palestinian leadership does too little to dispel the notion among its more extreme citizens that killing Israelis with a suicide bomb is the surest route to heaven. How can Israel deal with a population of parents that stand aside or even encourage their children to become martyrs?"

Yes, this is harsher and more explicit than the previous paragraph, but it works for several reasons:

(1) The human touch. Mentioning parents and children humanizes and personalizes the terror that Israel has to face every day.

(2) The rhetorical question. Even pro-Palestinians have a tough time answering that final question. It's time for Israeli spokespeople to ask a lot more unanswerable rhetorical questions as part of their communication effort.

(3) Acknowledging a cultural difference between Israelis and Palestinians is stating the obvious - and good for your case. Even those Americans that have sympathies for the Palestinian struggle have an easier time relating to the Israelis because of the similarities between America and Israel in culture, tradition and values.

With this in mind, we have identified four specific spokesperson themes and emotions that appeal to American opinion influencers when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and whatever negotiations may or will take place:

OPTIMISTIC

"I am hopeful that with the end of this war, the peoples of the Middle East will celebrate life and freedom. I am hopeful that the scenes of Iraqis throwing off the yoke of tyranny and fear will serve as a model for all peoples of the region. Yes, I do have hope that by reaching out to the stars, we can bring something good back to earth."

RESPECTFUL

"What we are hoping for is that the Palestinian people recognize the leadership they have right now has unfortunately a very different agenda than the agenda of the real Palestinian people...We do not have the right to tell the Palestinians who to elect to represent them but we hope they will choose leaders that will listen and truly care about them. "

THE HUMAN ELEMENT

"It's very difficult for us. We know that going into these Palestinian cities creates hardships and dilemmas for the Palestinians. But it is even more difficult to look our own children in the face knowing that that there are people in these cities planning to commit terrorist acts and not go in there and try to stop them before they kill."

DEDICATED TO DEMOCRACY

"We all know the importance of bringing genuine democracy and human rights to all nations and to uproot the ideology of terrorism. That is what we have tried to do, and we will keep on trying."

We have tested about 75-minutes of new language in Chicago and Los Angeles. Much of it was ineffective ... or worse. However, we did uncover some messages that do move opinion elites from neutral to positive. Of all the language that deals with the Palestinians directly, here's what works the best:

PALESTINIAN SOUND-BITES THAT WORK

Advocates of Israel will do well if they adopt the language that follows:

"The Palestinians deserve better leadership and they deserve a better society-with functioning institutions, democracy, and the rule of law."

"We are hoping to find a Palestinian leadership that really does reflect the best interest for the Palestinian people."

"As a matter of principle, Israel will sit down, negotiate and compromise with those that wish all the peoples of the Middle East to live together in peaceful coexistence. Egypt made peace with Israel. Jordan made peace with Israel. And both agreements still live on today."

"We know what it is to live our lives with the daily threat of terrorism. We know what it's like to send our children off to school one day and bury them the next. For us, terrorism isn't something we read about in the newspaper. It's something we see with our own eyes far too often."

"We don't want to sign a meaningless agreement that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. We want something real. If there is to be a just, fair and lasting peace, we need a partner who rejects violence and who values life more than death."

"As a matter of principle, the world should not force Israel to concede to those who publicly deny our right to exist or call for our annihilation."

"Right now, today, there are still terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs that the Palestinian Authority has either been unable or unwilling to curb-and Israelis continue to die because of it."

"Just as the American government pledges to secure for you life, liberty, and the chance to pursue happiness, so must Israel's government guarantee that we will be secure and free."

DEMOCRACY: CONNECTING IRAQ AND THE PALESTINIANS

"My earnest hope is that with regime change in Iraq, democracy may finally take firm root in the Middle East. If the Palestinian people and the people of other Middle Eastern nations are able to see the brilliant example of a successful Arabic democracy, I am confident the tide will turn.

Obviously it is wrong to assume that overwhelming American support for regime change in Iraq is fully transferable to changing the Palestinian leadership. Americans view them as separate issues - at least right now. That being said, your support for the American efforts to liberate the people of Iraq can and should be tied to our mutual interest in guaranteeing freedom for the Palestinian people.

Americans want democracy to flourish in the Middle East. There is genuine hope that the Iraqi people will establish a representative government with genuine freedoms. In that vein, remind people that the Iraqi people need not look any further than their Israeli neighbors for an example of such a government.

Democracy loves company. So far, one of Israel's most effective messages has been that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It's time to take that message one step further. Emphatically state that while you are proud of Israel's democracy, you would much rather be the FIRST democracy in the Middle East than the ONLY democracy in the Middle East. Consider the following communication ladder that draws the attention first to Iraq and only then to the Palestinians.

(1) Democracy matters. Never in the history of the world has a democratic government engaged in war with another democracy.

(2) Democracy in Iraq matters. Iraq's transition to democracy is an essential first step towards a stable Middle East.

(3) Democracy can bring peace. True regional peace will come only when governments truly represent the interests of their people and guarantee their freedom and security.

(4) It's time for true democracy for the Palestinian people. They deserve no less.

This may seem simplistic but the message works when delivered this way and in this order. Americans sincerely hope that Iraq - a former adversary - can become a partner in peace once a representative government is installed. Insofar as they yearn for freedom and deserve representative leadership, the Palestinian people are no different. This is exactly what Israel has asked of the Palestinian Authority for so long: to establish a legitimate government that will become a partner in peace.

TALKING ABOUT HOPE & THE FUTURE: FOUR KEY SENTENCES

(1) We hope that we can once again achieve peace with an Arab neighbor.

(2) We hope that terror will no longer be the only thing that separates Palestinians from having their own state and Israelis from living in peace.

(3) We hope that the Palestinian people will no longer languish under a leadership that refuses to be a partner for peace.

(4) We hope that we can negotiate a fair agreement with a democratic government that is committed to the rule of law.

As zealous as Americans are about their own democracy, they quite often have to be reminded why they defend it so fiercely. This reminder becomes your obligation when associating Israel's democratic values with those of America.

Using the word "democracy" without giving examples of what makes this system of government so essential is like saying you want "peace" without giving evidence that you've made honest strides toward achieving it. Americans want proof that you know what these nice-sounding words mean.

When linking our common bond of democracy, use specific examples of why we hope that more nations establish the freedoms democracy guarantees.

* Women are treated as equals

* The press operates freely

* All religions are respected

* The people chose who represents them in free elections

* Democracies do not make war on each other

Finally, make the argument that if these freedoms are so dear to Israelis and Americans, they are just as dearly missed by the Palestinian people. All people yearn to live free, and their current leadership denies them that right.

THE ROADMAP: A BALANCED APPROACH

[Author's note: We include this section because the President's speech did so well in both Chicago and Los Angeles and because this topic will be at the core of Jewish and Israeli communication efforts in the coming months. We warn readers that a great deal of additional research is needed to offer a guarantee that the words and messages included here are the best available.]

As the post-war dust settles over the Iraqi desert, the focus has already begun to shift to the Israel-Palestinian peace process and President Bush's so-called "roadmap" to peace. The good news is that the American people firmly believe that if the Palestinians want to demonstrate sincere commitment to peace, they must abide by the tenants of the President's soon-to-be-released roadmap. The not-as-good news is that they expect exactly same from Israel and they demand it immediately.

In both Chicago and Los Angeles, and among virtually all respondents regardless of political party, Americans responded quite favorably to the language from President Bush for two reasons: "a balanced approach" and "shared responsibilities." Keep those terms in mind and use them whenever possible.

WORDS THAT WORK: A BALANCED APPROACH

"I see a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side in peace and security. I call upon all parties in the Middle East to abandon old hatreds and to meet their responsibilities for peace

The Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful and democratic state that abandons forever the use of terror. The government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, must take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable and credible Palestinian state, and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement...

We believe that all people in the Middle East -- Arab and Israeli alike -- deserve to live in dignity, under free and honest governments. We believe that people who live in freedom are more likely to reject bitterness, blind hatred and terror; and are far more likely to turn their energy toward reconciliation, reform and development."

- President George W. Bush

COMPLICATING THE ROADMAP: MAHMOUD ABBAS (ABU MAZEN)

To some extent, your job as proponents of Israel has been easy. Under the Arafat regime, it's not difficult to convince the American public of the corruption of the current Palestinian leadership. While many sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people, there is no love lost for Yassir Arafat. Arafat is a terrorist; they know that. Better still, he looks the part.

The emergence of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian Prime Minister comes exactly at the wrong time. His ascent to power seems legitimate. He is a fresh face, and a clean-shaven one at that. He speaks well and dresses in Western garb. He may even genuinely want peace.

Just as President Bush had begun to make headway in drawing attention on the need for a reformed Palestinian leadership, the Palestinians throw us this curveball. What will the world make of Abbas? Is he the new leadership for which Israel has pleaded for years? Or is he an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

Given the haze surrounding this new figure, it is imperative that you NOT immediately launch criticisms on Abbas. This is critical for three reasons:

(1) Overt negativity. If it turns out that Abbas legitimately wants peace and that he represents the true interests of the Palestinian people, then the attacks you launch today will turn the tide of public opinion against ISRAEL tomorrow. You will undermine all of your credibility as the willing partner for peace if you shoot down the first true peace partner the Palestinians have offered. (We don't expect this scenario but it is possible.)

(2) The unknown factor. Abbas is a relative unknown in the international community. Look at his emergence as if it were part of a political campaign. He is not a candidate to sit at the negotiating table until he proves his worthiness. While uncertainty makes your communication strategies complicated, it should not necessarily change your priorities. The more you talk about him, the more he is going to be talked about, which leads to the next point...

(3) Patiently Await a Peace Partner. Abbas may be a leader who wants peace, but it is incumbent upon him to prove that he is the willing and serious partner Israel needs to pursue peace together. Whether or not he has been elected or appointed to this position, he still needs to demonstrate tangibly that he wants peace. Your goal remains a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Once the Palestinians have shown their house is in order, you will be ready and willing to find an agreement. And if they don't, they, not Israel, will be blamed.

NOTE: This is not to say that Abbas should be given a free ride in the press. It is only to say that criticisms must be confined to what he does to thwart the peace process as a leader of the Palestinian people. Allow him the chance to succeed. A brief exercise in game theory may better illustrate this point. What happens if...

You immediately attack Abbas, and he turns out to be a genuine and effective partner in peace?

Israel loses credibility as the party that wants peace above all else. He gains popularity among an international community that already doubts your rhetoric and "heavy-handed" actions, and wins over those Americans who sympathize with the Palestinian people but support you because they distrusted previously corrupt Palestinian leadership. This is the worst result possible.

You immediately attack Abbas, and he turns out to be an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

What has Israel truly gained? You may have stripped his faux wool months before he would have done it himself, but you risked backlash. In the end, it would have been better off to publicly remain committed to peace while letting the Palestinian leadership implode on the public relations front - a strategy that has worked effectively thus far.

You wait on Abbas to define himself, and he turns out to be a genuine and effective partner in peace?

The roadmap is instituted and there is a peaceful resolution to decades of conflict by this time next year. This is the best result possible.

You wait on Abbas to define himself, and he turns out to be an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

Let him keep the faux wool; you'll reap the benefits of this communications gold mine. All your old messages of needing a genuine partner for peace will ring even truer, and the next time, the new leader cannot be justifiably appointed by Arafat.

So when people ask for opinions or reactions to Abbas, put it in terms of a "scouting report" with the following two facts:

(1) He was appointed to his current position by Arafat, which is suspect.

(2) He has denied the Holocaust, which is confounding at best and offensive at worst.

If he is an Arafat in Western clothing, it will not take long to identify him as such. The American people will know it by the actions he takes and the demands he makes. That is an incrimination that, if true, he will do to himself.

Is it a concern that he is a Holocaust denier? Absolutely. Will that fact convince Americans that he cannot represent the Palestinian people in an honest bid for peace? Hardly. Americans don't want to hear about the Holocaust anymore, and they particularly don't want to hear it from the Jewish community.

Nevertheless, you need more substance on Abbas before you can tell the American people you question his devotion to peace.

Americans believe that peace has to start somewhere other than Arafat. If Abbas is presented as that alternative, they quickly identify him as a symbol of "hope." His emergence as Prime Minister (a very Western, democratic-friendly title) is all Americans will need to believe that the peace process should be underway. They will expect you to follow suit and take a seat at the negotiating table. Finally, most believe that the United States can and should serve as an honest broker between these two parties. In their eyes, these are all the ingredients needed to begin the peace process.

It is essential that you use positive language when asked about Abbas. However, that does not mean you must compliment Abbas himself. While knocking him down now does little to help your long-term goals, building him up is also counterproductive. Therefore you must remain positive about the peace process and indifferent about Abbas until he defines his role. Above all else, reaffirm your position that first terrorism stops, and then negotiations begin.

WORDS THAT WORK

"Yes, we hope that this potential change in leadership signals a new opportunity for peace in our region. Israel has long sought a partner who wants peace as dearly as we do. But Israel reaffirms that before any peace talks can begin, terror must end. We cannot negotiate with any leadership that allows its people to murder our civilians."

Mix this message in with one of compassion for the Palestinian people. Many Americans sympathize with their plight. So should you. Americans want to hear it. A statement that the Palestinian people deserve better should follow every recrimination of a Palestinian leader or terrorist.

WORDS THAT WORK

"We know the Palestinian people deserve better. We want for them what we have in Israel: freedom to say what they want, believe what they want, and live in equality. They also should have the right to choose who speaks on their behalf. The Palestinian people deserve and want leaders who will work for peace and not for terrorism. We know that terrorism causes hardships for everyone involved. That is why we are committed to working for peace as soon as we have a willing partner."

THE VALUE OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS

An effective communication technique to continue to apply pressure to the Palestinian leadership without looking like you are ignoring Israel's responsibilities is to pose rhetorical questions. These questions will lead to only one answer, of course: peace cannot be achieved until real reforms are in place, and that the terror must stop first.

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS TO ASK OPPONENTS OF ISRAEL

"How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when the same leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state two and a half years ago?"

"How can Yassir Arafat, whom Forbes Magazine says is worth more than three hundred million dollars, claim to be a leader who understands and represents an impoverished people when he has become rich at their expense?"

"Is it too much to ask that the Palestinian leadership not sponsor terrorists? Are we unreasonable to insist that they stop killing our innocent children before we jeopardize our security and make concessions for peace?"

"How can we make peace with a leader that does not believe in or allow free and honest elections?"

"Why do Palestinian schools have pictures of suicide bombers hanging up in the hallways of their schools or celebrate them as martyrs? Why do they name sports teams in the West Bank after suicide bombers? How can we make peace with the Palestinian people when their leaders instill a culture of terror against our people?"

"How can the Palestinian people end their impoverishment if their leaders continue to steal precious resources from them, which are then used to support terror?"

Why has Yassir Arafat been in power for so long, and yet made so little progress towards a peaceful resolution? If he were truly committed to peace, would he not have made a sincere effort to achieve it by now?

When will the Palestinian people themselves have a voice at the peace table?

The answer of every rhetorical question is the same: peace will come when the current Palestinian leadership is truly reformed and the terror tactics have ceased.

CONCLUSION: A LITTLE HUMILITY, PLEASE

Presenting a fair evaluation of your past allows you to present a hopeful - and believable - vision of your future.

You have your work cut out for you. As you emerge from one delicate public relations situation - war with Iraq - you enter an even dicier situation - cooperating on "the road map" with an unknown counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas. Fortunately the former may provide you some breathing room and cover for the latter.

The essential conclusion is to remain focused on your communication priorities from this point forward. Terror ends first. A willing peace partner emerges second. The roadmap is executed last. And throughout it all, you exhibit humility and reaffirm that the Palestinian people deserve better.

This memo has identified language that effectively articulates why - and how - the Palestinian leadership must change. Critiquing the other side is the always the easiest part of public communication, but it is only half of effective language.

Opinion elites in America will not find repeated criticisms of the Palestinian leadership credible unless they are coupled with a similar onus on the Israeli government to accommodate for peace and acknowledge past transgressions. Assertions that Israel enjoys a blameless history are soundly rejected. This will not be received well by everyone but it is essential for your spokespeople to acknowledge it Israel has made some mistakes. Not only does this build credibility but it also allows the spokesperson to then explain and assert Israel's history of taking strides for peace.

Here is how this message is best developed:

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PAST, BOTH GOOD AND BAD

(1) We know that the history of our conflict has been marked by frustration and mistrust by both Israelis and Palestinians, and Israel is willing to accept some of the blame for what has happened in the past

(2) However, throughout our history we have demonstrated that we value peace above all else. In our hope for peace we overcame differences and found agreement with our Arab neighbors Egypt and Jordan.

(3) We remain committed to peace. We offered the Palestinian people a state of their own that included over 97% of the West Bank. Their leadership rejected this proposal, showing once again that we do not have a partner for peace so long as the current Palestinian Authority remains the voice of the Palestinian people. It's time for a change - not just for us but for our Palestinian cousins as well.

1 The Luntz Research Companies & The Israel Project - April 2003

Alpha

Esquire February 1999, Volume 131, Issue 2

Greetings, America. My Name is Osama bin Laden

By John Miller

A conversation with the most dangerous man in the world.

Editor's note: What follows is an article on Osama bin Laden that was published in the February 1999 issue of Esquire. It has not been updated. We have posted it here simply because it contains some unique background information on the lead suspect in the attack on America.

The gunfire started with a few shots, but in seconds it was thundering. On cue, dozens of Arab men began firing their rifles into the air when the headlights of the first four-wheel-drive vehicle crested the mountaintop. My right ear was pounding. I turned, expecting to see a cannon, but instead it was just a smiling boy—he might have been fifteen—and he was firing his machine gun an inch from my ear. I assumed that this was some kind of test, a rite of passage. He wanted to see fear. I'd been a reporter and a police official in New York. I'd heard my share of shots fired in anger. I just smiled at the kid and gently pushed the gun away. This was my way of saying, Nice try, but you didn't make me jump. No matter, the kid was right back an inch from my ear, firing away. Now it wasn't funny anymore. I glared at him, but let's face it, the little punk had an AK-47 with a thirty-round clip. How far could I get with hard eyes? One thing I learned in New York during the crack wars of the late eighties: Teenagers with machine guns are best not messed with. So as I watched the man arrive and his loyal soldiers discharged their weapons in ecstasy, this kid was doing his best to make me deaf.

The mountaintop in southern Afghanistan was a long way from home, but in another way it wasn't. I was almost sure that night that the man I had come to meet, the man who was inspiring all this firepower, had pressed the buttons that blew up the World Trade Center in New York. Small world.

Just minutes before this explosive welcome, I had been told, "Mr. bin Laden will be here shortly." The tall bearded man with the elaborate turban had not introduced himself by name, but he seemed to be, for lack of a better title, Osama bin Laden's press secretary. "We have prepared a great welcome. Whenever he comes, there is always celebration."

Yellow trails from tracer bullets streaked at odd angles, crisscrossing the black, star-crowded skies. Fireworks shot up, and sparks fell like orange rain, evaporating before they hit the ground. As the gunfire continued, the motorcade of three four-wheel-drives crossed the flat dirt encampment.

Scores of bin Laden's most devout followers were here, all carrying Chinese- and Russian-made machine guns. Several were posted strategically with rocket-propelled grenades. For months, I had been trying to arrange an interview with the man. Now, two months before the destruction of U. S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by bin Laden's truck bombs, it was happening. It was after midnight on this mountaintop, and Osama bin Laden was not yet a household name in the United States. Still, a grand jury in New York had for a year been hearing evidence about his role as a key organizer and financier of anti-American terrorism. The FBI suspected that bin Laden—or at least bin Laden's money—had been behind everything from the World Trade Center bombing to the downing of American helicopters in Somalia to bombings that targeted American servicemen in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. And by now, bin Laden knew that his targets were beginning to wake up to the threat he posed.

That was the very reason I wanted to interview him, and the reason getting such an interview would not be a simple process. His public-relations apparatus is a sophisticated and complex network of agents and intermediaries. The first discussions took place in the old, ornate Jefferson Hotel in Washington. A couple of ABC News producers, Chris Isham and Len Tepper, brought me to meet with a trusted contact who had good connections among Islamic fundamentalists. Soon he sent word back: We would have to travel to London and meet with some of bin Laden's people. Bin Laden, it seems, has people all over. Two meetings, both in Tudor-style homes a half hour's drive from central London. We removed our shoes, drank cider and water, and made our intentions toward bin Laden known. We told his people we would raise the issues that concerned him, and "tell his side" and enough about his background so people would get a broader understanding of him.

"Instead of just pounding on the ‘terrorist on the mountain' theme," I told one of bin Laden's agents, "we could frame his issues about America in such a way that people might find his arguments reasonable."

The man smiled. "It may be better if he does not appear to be too reasonable," he said.

FROM LONDON, WE WERE TO MOVE on to Islamabad and await further instructions at the Marriott. We had made the first cut. After a day in the Pakistani capital, a man arrived and said his name was Akhtar. We would only ever know him as Akhtar. But during the next few weeks, he would become the most important person in our world, our passport, our safe passage. He was tall, maybe six two, thin and lanky, and he walked to an inaudible beat, with one hand crooked back, swinging slightly. A rolling strut, the walk of an urban black kid. Where he picked it up I never learned. Akhtar was Afghani and spoke almost no English and only a little Arabic—just enough so that our Iraqi translator, whom I'll call Ali, could understand him. Akhtar told Ali he would have to inspect us, our rooms, our gear. He was such a no-nonsense guy, it sometimes just made me want to laugh. A lesson: Something about being from New York or being American or, hell, being human makes one laugh at inappropriate times. Such as when in the presence of committed warriors whom your government has taken to calling terrorists. Good idea to check that impulse, within reason. Also, resist the urge to crack jokes, especially if your hosts aren't much for jokes.

When the knock came at my door early the next morning, it was a surprise. Akhtar and another man, a heavyset guy, came in. "They just want to see you," Ali explained as the two men carefully looked at me in my boxer shorts. They looked at my open suitcase on the bed stand. Akhtar and the other man looked in the bathroom. I was not sure what they were looking for. I assumed just telltale signs that we were CIA agents or something. The two men left for further negotiations in Ali's room. That night, Akhtar called Ali at the hotel.

"It is happening," Ali told me when he relayed Akhtar's instructions. "Be ready at 7:00 a.m., and be dressed like him."

Ali, cameraman Rick Bennett, and I immediately took a cab from the hotel to a run-down strip of stores and found the "Cash Departmental Store," where we each purchased a suit for about fifteen dollars. Rick went all out and got the vest. A suit was a knee-length shirt, baggy pants, and rope—the white cotton belt with fringe that would hold up the one-size-fits-all pants if you knew how to tie it. We suspected we were going to Afghanistan, but none of us had the necessary visas to get into Afghanistan or back into Pakistan. Akhtar told us that his "people" would handle everything.

The next morning, curt instructions: Get to the Islamabad airport. Before leaving, I dropped a copy of my police badge and "retired" ID card into a FedEx envelope to Robert Tucker, my lawyer in New York. The last thing I wanted bin Laden's people to find was my old badge. I could just hear myself trying to explain the police credentials: I swear, I was just a clerk. Really! In public relations! (Tucker later told me that when he got the badge and ID with no note, he assumed I'd been killed. "Then," he said, "I wondered if I could have your car.")

In time, Akhtar also showed up at the airport. He looked us over. I was wearing the light-brown baggy pants and the oversized shirt that I'd bought the day before. It seemed to be the uniform for millions in this region. The outfit, which was meant to make me blend in at the airport and on the road, was offset slightly by the white socks I wore under the sandals, the Armani prescription glasses, and the Cuban cigars I'd picked up in London. I wasn't fitting in. Rick and Ali wore the same outfit in light gray. Akhtar led us to the gate. We were traveling on sealed orders. As we boarded the plane, we were handed tickets. We were going to Peshawar, the pearl of Pakistan.

It was hazy when we got off the plane, very hazy. As you drive into Peshawar, smoke fills the air and sticks at the bottom of your throat. Something seemed to be burning almost everywhere—rubbish, wood, tires. We checked into the Hotel Grand, a 1950s Miami Beach art-deco affair located down an alley off the main road. Hotel security was a man in a green uniform who wore a red beret and carried a Chinese-made machine gun. The very friendly clerks who signed us in made note of the odd collection of nationalities—American, Canadian, Iraqi, and Pakistani—and they knew enough not to ask any of us what our business was in Peshawar. After we checked in, Akhtar strutted into the night, carrying the plastic bag that held his things.

I went out on the fifth-floor balcony to light up one of the Romeo y Julieta Churchills. Just what Peshawar needed: more smoke. I imagined what this sad, bustling city was like during the Afghan war, when it had been the staging area for the mujahideen. This place had been a world-class hotbed of militant organizers and recruiters, CIA operations officers, and KGB spies. Even now, it is the back office of the militant Islamic movement for the region. I looked out at the hovels and junkyards and watched the moon come up through the smoke.

Akhtar called the hotel in the morning and told us once again to get to the airport. And again, we were handed tickets in the waiting area. We walked across the tarmac to a prop plane headed for Bannu, in northern Pakistan. With each stop, our trip was taking us further back in time, each place getting more primitive in custom and lifestyle. Here, donkeys pulled carts, and men and women carried sacks hanging from sticks across their shoulders or baskets on top of their heads. In Bannu, we waited outside the tiny airport as vans and buses passed by. After an hour, a van packed with locals stopped, and an old man got out and greeted Akhtar. We all crammed into the van, which was already too crowded. We had been told not to speak. The other passengers already knew we were Westerners, but they didn't need to know that some of us were American.

The van drove for two hours. People got off; more people got on. At a village that was nothing more than mud huts and thatched roofs, a loud bang came from the roof of the van. A young man with a cloth bag tied to the end of a branch scampered off the roof and ran toward the huts. The van itself was the only sure reminder that we were not two thousand years in the past.

Minor revelation: For most Americans, me included, experience with the ancients is pretty much confined to the Bible. In the Bible is a world rife with plagues and pestilence, a world where things are worth killing and dying for, a world from a time before kill ratios and collateral damage and unacceptable levels of casualties. A world of huts. A world where there is no such thing as a losing battle. In modern America, we no longer have the stomach for endeavors that don't seem like sure bets, which can make things tricky when you're up against someone who doesn't give a damn, someone who is willing to risk everything, and gladly. At Bannu, it felt as if we were crossing over into that world, where the ancient texts aren't so ancient, where martyrs are made.

When the van reached a small town, we got into another van, which took us for another hour, farther north through mountains and barren valleys, stopping at the last town before a wilderness that leads to the Afghan border. The old man drove the van into the courtyard of a small house, and metal gates closed behind us. We were to remain unseen in this village. The old man said that this place had been a safe house for mujahideen fighters headed for the Afghan war. The walls were covered with pictures of tanks and grenades. A pair of loaded AK-47's hung from nails on the walls.

Akhtar brought in a stainless-steel bowl filled with meat on the bone, placed it on the floor, and invited us to eat. There was pita bread and Pepsi. We sat on the floor, eating with our hands. In two hours, we were on the road again, in the back of a covered Japanese pickup, our gear hidden under bags of flour. Near the Afghan border, the truck stopped.

Most of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban, a Muslim fundamentalist group that believes, among other things, that television is evil (a sentiment gaining popularity in the West) and that no living thing should be photographed or videotaped. So sneaking three American television journalists with camera equipment past a Taliban border checkpoint posed difficulties. Akhtar gave us the options: We could 1) don long black veils with narrow slits for eyes and cross into Afghanistan disguised as women, or 2) walk over the mountains under cover of darkness and hope to avoid the Taliban's patrols. Ali had strong feelings on the subject. "We are not women," he said indignantly. "We will not wear veils. We will walk, as men."

An hour into the journey, Ali was wheezing and barely able to continue. He had not mentioned his asthma. "I want to go back to truck and be woman now," he said before hauling himself up to walk again. I lagged behind with him while Rick and our two guides led the way. At one point, I noticed that the guides were holding hands. "Ali," I whispered as I nodded in their direction, "you didn't mention that this was a gay terrorist group." Ali, still very asthmatic, patiently explained that among Muslim men it is customary to hold hands while walking. It is a sign of respect and friendship. It is perfectly masculine. "Yeah," I said. "I was joking." A moment passed. We walked in silence, save for Ali's wheezing. "Would you hold my hand, Ali?" I asked. "No," he replied.

It was still dark when we finally made it into Afghanistan. A truck was waiting with our gear. We drove for several more hours, mostly through dry riverbeds, before we reached the first of bin Laden's three camps. We were stopped on a dirt road. Two of bin Laden's people confiscated our camera gear and drove away.

We stayed in a hut, sleeping on the floor, which was covered with brown and red flannel blankets. Pillows lined the walls. "You are not prisoners here; you are our guests," said one of bin Laden's aides. "Still, we would prefer it if you stayed inside. We don't want to advertise your presence."

Several of bin Laden's soldiers were assigned to guard us. They slept in the hut next to ours. We washed from a bowl. Water came from a spigot just outside. An outhouse was up the hill. We spent our time reading or smoking and bullshitting with bin Laden's men, one of whom spoke pretty good English. We would eat with the soldiers. Bread, meat, tea. It was hot and dry. It had occurred to us that the interview might not be for days, or that after a few days we could be told that there would be no interview at all. That is the way these things go sometimes. Days of waiting, and then nothing. Most of that kind of waiting—for Castro or Qaddafi—is done in nice hotels. This was beginning to suck.

FINALLY, JUST AS I BEGAN TO LOSE TRACK OF TIME, we hit the road. An hour into this leg and, suddenly, gunfire. It was rapid-fire, from machine guns; I could see the muzzle flash through the tinted windows. It was coming from up the hill. Four short blasts, about thirty rounds, then another thirty from the opposite side of the road. My mind was racing. Several times during the three-hour drive between camps, men with guns had jumped out from both sides of the road and screamed in Arabic for the truck to halt, for the windows to come down. Those men were part of al Qaida, bin Laden's army. But now who was shooting at us? And why? Were we going to die? I was trying hard to duck my head between my legs, but with three of us stuck together across the backseat, there was no room to get our heads down. My stomach was in knots. Now I was really thinking: “BLANK” this. Now it's really not worth it. . . . bam bam bam bam . . . Why am I going to die to interview some asshole with radical views and a lot of money? . . . bam bam bam bam . . . For Christ's sake, I could have done that in New York. . . . bam bam bam bam . . . Then a second wave of thoughts flashed through my head: I was not hearing the sound of metal being hit. The shots were missing. Our guides were not ducking. If they were not worried, maybe this was okay. Slowly, I raised my head.

The shooters in the road were yelling for us to halt, to open the doors. The gunfire had been warning shots. For crying out “BLANK’ing loud. Looking at their faces between the blinding beams of their flashlights, I could see they were very young, perhaps eighteen or nineteen. They had apparently not received the radio message from the last checkpoint that the boys from New York were coming up. It was a little cold out that night, but I was wiping sweat off my forehead. After a little tension and much talk, the driver settled the problem, and we were moving again. We passed one more checkpoint—without incident—before reaching the camp where bin Laden would meet us.

In the camp, generators were rumbling. The smell of gasoline was thick in the air. Rick Bennett was agitated because bin Laden's people had taken his camera days before, and it didn't look as though he was going to get it back. Now they wanted to give him another camera. A Panasonic home-video camera. Bennett had not come halfway around the world to shoot a home video. He wanted his $65,000 television camera back, and he wanted it back now! Just then, the gunfire erupted. Bin Laden's convoy arrived. Now the show that was being staged for us was in full tilt, and we had no camera with which to record it. Bin Laden's cameraman handed Bennett the Panasonic. Bennett started taping. That's when the kid started shooting in my ear. Then he ran alongside Bennett and was firing within an inch of his ear, too, as he walked backward with this crappy camera, taping bin Laden's arrival.

INTO THE DIN OF GUNFIRE, he walked quickly, surrounded by seven bodyguards. Each had an AK-47. Their eyes darted in every direction for any attacker. This was either merely theatrical or entirely pointless, because with hundreds of rounds being fired into the air, it would have been impossible to pinpoint an assassin. Take your pick. At bin Laden's side was his military commander, Muhammad Atef. Behind him, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Islamic Jihad, an Egyptian group that has merged with bin Laden's growing army. Bin Laden, with his simple white turban and long black beard, stood six three and was the tallest man in the group. Despite the chaos of the scene, his eyes were calm, fixed, and steady. He walked by me and ducked his head to step into a rectangular hut that had been set up for our meeting. One of his aides waved off the gunfire the way an emcee might quell a standing ovation. Everyone kept shooting. Somewhere, all these bullets were falling back down to the earth.

Osama bin Laden had made his entrance.

After his security detail crowded in behind him, I followed into the hut. Aside from his height, the first thing that struck me about bin Laden was his voice: It was soft and slightly high, with a raspy quality that gave it the texture and sound of an old uncle giving good advice. Bin Laden settled onto a bench covered with red cushions at the head of the long, rectangular room with clay walls painted white. Sitting down, he propped his own gun against the wall behind him. Twenty of his gunmen lined the benches on either side of the long room, leaning in, straining to hear whatever he might say. Bin Laden's clothes told the story of his entangled themes. He wore a green army field jacket with no insignia. Draped over the jacket was a gold shawl, and under the army jacket was the traditional Muslim clothing that made him look like me.

Osama bin Laden has a firm handshake. We exchanged pleasantries in the polite but stilted manner one uses when speaking through a translator. His aides had insisted the day before that I give them a list of my questions in writing. As bin Laden was getting settled, one of them said to me, "I have very good news. Mr. bin Laden will answer each of your questions." Then he added that bin Laden's answers would not be translated on the spot. "You can take the tape to New York and have them translate it there."

"If the answers are not translated now, how can I ask follow-up questions?" I asked bin Laden's man.

"Oh, that will not be a problem," he told me. "There will be no follow-up questions."

At this point, Rick, using stronger terms than one might want to with alleged terrorists, demanded his camera back. Suddenly, all his equipment reappeared.

Looking to break the ice, I said to the translator, "Tell Mr. bin Laden that for a guy who comes from a family known for building roads, he could sure use a better driveway up this mountain." Okay, so admittedly it wasn't much of a joke, but bin Laden's interpreter appeared stricken. "No, no, no," I said, "don't translate, never mind," waving off the remark. "It's okay," I said, trying to prevent an international incident. Not funny. Sorry. Jesus.

There was another problem. As I continued my lame attempts at small talk, flies kept landing on bin Laden's face and white turban. Sensing that this was undercutting their leader's dignity, his aides asked bin Laden and the gunmen in the room to step outside so that they might spray.

A few minutes later, in a cloud of insecticide, we began.

OSAMA BIN MUHAMMAD BIN AWAD BIN LADEN was born forty-one years ago in Saudi Arabia, one of twenty sons of wealthy construction magnate Muhammad bin Laden. The kingdom's Bin Laden Group is a $5 billion concern. The family's close ties to the Saudi royal family made it easy to get huge government contracts to build roads through the cities and deserts. It is likely that Osama bin Laden would have gone to school, settled in London, and focused on living comfortably—if history hadn't intervened.

On December 25, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden, then twenty-two, left for the fighting immediately. When he arrived, he wasted no time. Spending his money, he financed the recruitment, transportation, and arming of thousands of Palestinians, Tunisians, Somalians, Egyptians, Saudis, and Pakistanis to fight the Russians.

Bin Laden brought in his own bulldozers and dump trucks. Grizzled mujahideen fighters still tell of the young man who rode the bulldozers himself, digging trenches on the front lines. The men who follow bin Laden have all heard the stories, and they pass them on to the younger men. By his own account, he was in the thick of the action. He says he got the rifle he carries now in hand-to-hand combat.

"We went through vicious battles with the Russians," bin Laden told me. "The Russians are known for their brutality. They used poison gases against us. I was subjected to this. We lost many fighters. But we were able to deter many commando attacks, unlike anything before."

I asked him why a man of wealth, from a powerful family, had gone to Afghanistan to live in trenches and fight the Russian invaders on the front lines.

"It is hard for one to understand if the person does not understand Islam," he said, patiently explaining his interpretation of Islam for a citizen of his sworn enemy. "During the days of jihad, thousands of young men who were well-off financially left the Arabian Peninsula and other areas and joined the fighting. Hundreds of them were killed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya."

Of course, by the time of our meeting, the enemy had shifted. The Soviet Union no longer existed. The enemy was us. And when I asked bin Laden if he was worried about being captured in an American raid, he quickly dismissed the possibility, turning instead to the reasons he hates the United States.

"The American imposes himself on everyone. Americans accuse our children in Palestine of being terrorists—those children, who have no weapons and have not even reached maturity. At the same time, Americans defend a country, the state of the Jews, that has a policy to destroy the future of these children.

"We are sure of our victory against the Americans and the Jews as promised by the Prophet: Judgment day shall not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, where the Jew will hide behind trees and stones, and the tree and the stone will speak and say, ‘Muslim, behind me is a Jew. Come and kill him.' "

Bin Laden never raises his voice, and to listen to his untranslated answers, one could imagine that he was talking about something that did not much concern him. Nonchalant. He does not smile. He continued, looking down at his hands as if he were reading invisible notes. "Your situation with Muslims in Palestine is shameful—if there is any shame left in America. Houses were demolished over the heads of children. Also, by the testimony of relief workers in Iraq, the American-led sanctions resulted in the death of more than one million Iraqi children. All of this is done in the name of American interests. We believe that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are the Americans. The only way for us to fend off these assaults is to use similar means. We do not worry about American opinion or the fact that they place prices on our heads. We as Muslims believe our fate is set."

His interview technique was formidable. Aside from the advantage of not allowing for simultaneous translation, bin Laden's approach to questions could have been taught by an American public-relations adviser: First, get out your message. Then, if you like, answer the question.

Bin Laden believes that the United States, which was so heavily involved in supporting the Afghan rebels, misses the profound point of that exercise: Through sheer will, even superpowers can be defeated.

"There is a lesson to learn from this for he who wishes to learn," he said. "The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan in the last week of 1979, and with Allah's help their flag was folded a few years later and thrown in the trash, and there was nothing left to call the Soviet Union."

The war changed bin Laden. "It cleared from Muslim minds the myth of superpowers," he said. He was blooded, a hero among militant Muslims, with perhaps three thousand men waiting to follow him. But follow him where, into what battle? Many of these men had not been home for years. By then, fighting was all some of them knew. And there were huge stockpiles of weapons and grenades and rocket launchers, many of them bought for the mujahideen rebels by the CIA.

In December 1992, bin Laden found the battle he'd been waiting for. The United States was leading a UN-sanctioned rescue mission into Somalia. In the midst of a famine, the country's government had completely broken down, and warring tribes—largely Muslim—had cut off relief efforts by humanitarian groups. Somalians were starving to death in cities and villages, and the U. S., which had moved quickly to rescue oil-rich Kuwait, had come under mounting criticism for doing nothing.

When the Marines landed in the last days of 1992, bin Laden sent in his own soldiers, armed with AK-47's and rocket launchers. Soon, using the techniques they had perfected against the Russians, they were shooting down American helicopters. The gruesome pictures of the body of a young army ranger being dragged naked through the streets by cheering crowds flashed around the world. The yearlong American rescue mission for starving Somalians went from humanitarian effort to quagmire in just three weeks. Another superpower humiliated. Another bin Laden victory.

"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda . . . about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

I asked bin Laden why he would kill American soldiers whose work was to restore order and allow for the distribution of food.

"Why should we believe that was the true reason America was there?" he replied. "Everywhere else they went where Muslims lived, all they did was kill children and occupy Muslim land."

During the two days I had waited at the camp for bin Laden, some of his fighters sat on the floor of our hut and told war stories. One soldier, with a big grin, told of slitting the throats of three American soldiers in Somalia.

When I asked bin Laden about this, he said, "When this took place, I was in the Sudan, but this great defeat pleased me very much, the way it pleases all Muslims."

The Somalia operation, in some ways, made bin Laden. During the Afghan war, the CIA had been very aware of him (although the agency now insists it never "controlled" him), but in Somalia, bin Laden had taken a swing at the biggest kid in the school yard and given him a black eye. The next fight, a few weeks later, would begin with a sucker punch.

It was snowing in New York on February 26, 1993, when a massive truck bomb exploded at the World Trade Center, tearing through three levels of the building's underground garage, basement, and foundation. At the time, I was a reporter for NBC. As I walked through the scene, I saw a cop I knew from an antiterrorist unit. Initial reports were that it had been a gas explosion or a transformer that blew up. "They're not saying this now," he warned, "but this was a bomb. Too big to be a car, probably a truck on the lower level of the garage. There just isn't anything down there that could blow up and make a hole this big."

Six people were killed, and more than a thousand were injured. It was the first major international terrorist attack on U. S. soil. Within weeks, the FBI had tracked down four of the bombers, a collection of militant Muslims, most of whom had fought in Afghanistan and had become followers of a blind sheik in Jersey City named Omar Abdel Rahman. The organizer of the bombing plot, Ramzi Yousef, boarded a plane at Kennedy airport a few hours after the explosion and escaped.

In New York, the FBI had been given two mandates: Find the rest of the bombers, and find out whom they are working for. The agents began the tedious job of tracing bank accounts that Yousef had been using to buy the components of the huge bomb. The money trail led from a Jersey City bank where Yousef had used an ATM card to Detroit to London to Pakistan and finally to Afghanistan. FBI agents and New York detectives on the Joint Terrorist Task Force debated: Was it the Iranians? The Iraqis? The Libyans? The consensus among the detectives was that Ramzi Yousef was an intelligence operative working for some hostile foreign power. But instead, investigators have since uncovered a series of connections between Yousef and groups funded by an individual, Osama bin Laden.

But bin Laden denied to me that he was behind the bombing and claimed he didn't know Ramzi Yousef. "Unfortunately," he said with a wave of his hand, "I did not know him before the incident."

Next, Ramzi Yousef was seen in Manila with another of bin Laden's associates, Afghan war hero Wali Khan Amin Shah. They were busy planning to blow up a dozen American jetliners over the Pacific. Once again, Yousef had no job but seemed to have plenty of money to finance his plans. The FBI finally caught up to him on February 7, 1995, in Pakistan. He was living in a very pleasant guesthouse called the Su Casa house in Islamabad. It was one of the many guesthouses that bin Laden had set up to quarter his fighters.

Government sources say that Khan is now cooperating with the FBI. The sources tell me that Khan had been very busy moving around the world, setting various bin Laden plans into motion. He told the agents he went to mail drops and fax machines to receive coded instructions from bin Laden's bases in the Sudan and Afghanistan and that he was in Manila to set up training camps for terrorists when he was ordered to survey the routes that President Clinton would be using during an official state visit to the Philippines.

Last winter, Khan, wearing a bright-orange jumpsuit, sat in a closed room in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan, patiently explaining to the feds that the mercury found in his apartment in Manila was not for bomb making but was rather to be placed inside the bullets that would be used to shoot President Clinton. "That way," Khan said, "if the shot didn't kill him, he would die by poisoning."

Sitting in the hut on bin Laden's mountain in Afghanistan, I asked bin Laden if he had tried to kill Clinton. "As I said, every action elicits a similar reaction," he explained. "What does Clinton expect from those that he killed, assaulting their children and mothers?" But he was quick to sidestep the question of his culpability, very careful not to implicate himself. He wasn't in Somalia, but he liked what he saw. He didn't blow up American bases in Saudi Arabia, but those who did are martyrs. He didn't pay for the World Trade Center bombing or the plot to kill Clinton, but they were good ideas.

For the future, bin Laden told me his first priority is to get the American military out of Saudi Arabia, the holiest of lands in Islam. "Every day the Americans delay their departure, they will receive a new corpse."

Already, U. S. forces have been dealt devastating blows there. Nineteen servicemen were killed in the 1996 bombing of the air-force barracks in Dhahran, and five U. S. military personnel were killed in a similar bombing in Riyadh in 1995. Investigators believe bin Laden is tied at some level to both attacks. Bin Laden said that the American military would leave Saudi Arabia, regardless of the fact that the Saudi royal family welcomes the American presence. "It does not make a difference if the government wants you to stay or leave. You will leave when the youth send you in wooden boxes and coffins. And you will carry in them the bodies of American troops and civilians. This is when you will leave."

Civilians?

"We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are all targets in this fatwa." Bin Laden argued that American outrage at attacks on American civilians constitutes a great double standard.

Bin Laden believes that what we consider to be terrorism is just the amount of violence required to get the attention of the American people. His aim is to get Americans to consider whether continued support of Israel is worth the bloodshed he promises.

"So we tell the Americans as people," bin Laden said softly, "and we tell the mothers of soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the lives of their children, to find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and not the interests of the Jews. The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as Ramzi Yousef and others did. This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves."

His last words to the camera were, "It is our duty to lead people to the light."

Ali had been told to sit in the back of the room during the interview. When it was over, I went looking for him. "So, do we have a story?" I whispered when I found him. "Please tell me it wasn't just an hour of ‘Praise Allah' bullshit."

"No," Ali said. "We have a very good story." I asked Ali what bin Laden had said that would make this news. "He was looking right into your face," Ali said, "and he was saying that you—you people, the Americans—would be going home from the Middle East in coffins and in boxes."

"He said that?" I asked, excited. "And while he was saying this, what was I doing?"

Ali looked at me a bit oddly and said, "You were nodding like you agreed with his plan."

During the hour-long interview, bin Laden, assuming correctly that I did not understand a word he was saying, had taken to looking at his translator as he gave his answers. Clearly, he did not understand the basic conventions of the American television interview. Imagine that. So, to keep his responses directed toward our camera, to make it seem like we were rocking along together, I engaged him in knowing eye contact and nodded thoughtfully.

"So, Ali, you're telling me he's promising genocide, and I'm nodding like an asshole?"

"Yes," Ali said, smiling.

But we had our little story, and a few weeks later, in a few minutes of footage, Osama bin Laden would say hi to America. Not many people would pay attention. Just another Arab terrorist.

Bin Laden was once again surrounded by his men, leaving the way he came in. It was past two in the morning as the gunfire started again. This time, Rick shot the whole scene. But as we packed our gear, bin Laden's press aide and his security chief came over to inspect our tape. Looking carefully at each scene of bin Laden arriving and leaving, they ordered any face not covered with a kaffiyeh to be erased. When I objected, they said the deal was simple: If we did not delete the faces, we would not leave with the tape. And so, into the night, they played and rewound, played and rewound. Over each face, the two would confer. "He travels," one would say to the other, and we'd have to delete that second or two of footage.

According to the FBI, last summer, a group of these men "traveled" for bin Laden to Kenya and Tanzania. On August 7, two truck bombs destroyed the American embassies in both countries. Two hundred thirteen dead in Kenya. Twelve of them were Americans. In Tanzania, none of the eleven killed were Americans. Most were Africans. Many of them were Muslims.

Two weeks after the bombings, President Clinton ordered a missile attack on the very site where we had met bin Laden. All three of his camps were obliterated, and there were casualties. In anticipation of this American retaliation, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Atef, and most of the leadership had gone into seclusion.

AKHTAR, WHO HAD VANISHED AT THE AFGHAN BORDER on our trek in, was among those cheering, 9mm in his shoulder holster, as bin Laden came and went. Akhtar travels, too. He very obligingly escorted us out of Afghanistan and drove us all the way back to Islamabad.

Meanwhile, bin Laden's reach has now been documented among Albanians fighting the Serbs in Kosovo. Wherever Muslims are in trouble, it seems, Osama bin Laden will be there, slaying enemies, real or perceived. A modern nightmare, really—a big-screen villain, a freelancer with the resources of a state but without all the nasty obligations. Sort of a Ford Foundation for terrorists—or freedom fighters, depending on whom you ask.

After the American cruise-missile attacks, intelligence sources told me that bin Laden had been intercepted talking on satellite phones, trying desperately to get damage assessments and news of casualties. The same sources said that bin Laden had shifted his operations from Khost to Kandahar and that he was building new camps. To try to arrange another meeting, Chris Isham and I asked Ali to return to London.

A few days later, the same people we had been dealing with in London were arrested by Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Branch on "suspected connections to bin Laden's terrorist group." One was being held for possible extradition to the United States. We sent one more request to bin Laden, this time through our man in Peshawar, along with a list of questions. We haven't heard back.

Bin Laden's old house, a walled mansion with a tower, has become a guesthouse for his men. These men, new volunteers, seem to be showing up in greater numbers since the bombing. Some will fight in Kashmir, others will fight on the front lines against the Taliban's opposition, and some, of course, will "travel" for bin Laden. After dark, around Kandahar, motorcades of twenty cars with tinted windows speed through the city. No one there has to wonder who it is. Osama bin Laden races through the darkness, taillights vanishing in a cloud of dust, a most wanted man.

The day after the American counterstrike, an ABC News colleague in Pakistan got a call from Ayman al-Zawahiri, who had been at the camp with us that night. Al-Zawahiri said bin Laden was alive and very well and that he had a message for us:

"The war has just started. The Americans should wait for the answer."

Alpha

Indonesians stage anti-Israel protests
by
Sunday 17 April 2005 9:36 AM GMT

Indonesian protesters chanted anti-Israel slogans

Tens of thousands of Indonesians have staged peaceful anti-Israel rallies in the capital and several other cities to protest at Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people and to call for protection of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

About 80,000 people marched peacefully down Jakarta's main streets on Sunday, some chanting "Israel is the terrorist".

Thousands of Indonesians also protested in the Central Java capital of Semarang, Lampung, Pekanbaru and Banda Aceh on Sumatra island as well as in South Sulawesi's capital, Makassar, unfurling banners saying "Save Al-Aqsa from raid of the Jewish".

The protesters rallied outside the US embassy in what the police said appeared to be the largest protest the city had seen in years.

Slogans

"The US, Israel are the real terrorist," read a large banner
carried by protesters who yelled anti-Israeli slogans.

Some protesters in Banda Aceh and Makassar trampled on

Israeli flags while waving the Palestinian flag.

The protests were organised by the Justice and Prosperity Party, a rapidly growing Islamic-based political party whose clean image helped lead it to a strong showing in parliamentary elections last year.

The protest came one week after a Hamas leader appealed to "the entire Muslim world" to protect al-Aqsa, as up to 10,000 Palestinians formed a mass human shield at the al-Aqsa Mosque against any possible threat to the site by Israeli ultra-nationalists.

A group of extremist Jews in Israel called Revava, which opposes Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, has threatened to storm the al-Aqsa Mosque in July, when Israeli police and soldiers are to evacuate 9000 settlers from Gaza.

Agencies
By

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/472AF34D-B90C-4EAB-89E4-FDF8D6A5A8F0.htm

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

LA Times: U.S. policy on Israel key motive for 911 Attack