Skip to content or view screen version

Text of Taleban leader's speech

bbc news | 24.09.2001 20:49

Text of the speech by the Taleban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar from the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency

America shouldn't be mistaken. My death or the death of Osama (Bin Laden) will not bring America out of this crisis.

If America wants to root out terrorism and intimidation, then it should withdraw its forces from the Gulf and demonstrate neutrality over the issue of Palestine.

It should release Islam, which it has taken hostage in a spiritual form and should stop further interference.

A good example of Islam as a hostage is the present situation which they (the Americans) have created in Afghanistan. They want the end of the Islamic order; they want to create disorder, and they want a pro-American government.

In this case, where will the taste of Islam be for Muslims, and how angry and in what poor conditions will Muslims be? They (the Americans) have done this in many Islamic countries.

America has no alternative in these affairs to locking itself in a bloody war in which it will burn itself and others, and which will have no result.

The American people and the government should consider this oppressive and ugly policy, which tells each Muslim: Accept my words; if not I will throw an atomic bomb on you and will close off the holes through which sustenance can reach you.

These are all facts. The distance travelled by a lie is short.

bbc news
- e-mail: /

Comments

Hide the following comment

seeking contexts of facts

24.09.2001 22:44

Let's remember that this is a head of a state speaking; or at least a major functionary who has worked with the c.i.a. in a functionary aspect. This means, in my view, that this man subordinates himself to doctrine first, especially when speaking in a capacity where he is formally representing his organization.

Certainly there is more going on than meets the eye. I am highly sceptical of u.s./nato foreign policy, yet at the same time I am also sceptical of the words of all whom have and will play the games of diplomacy, even in the name of religion.

Is the only reason for an informal attack on a civilian target to end the u.s./nato occupation of the middle east? Why not a formal attack, then? Or, why not a formal diplomatic effort via a large pile of middle eastern governments in exile working in a coalition with other nations which have time and time again been forced to comply with u.s./nato dictates?

I wonder about this, and look forward to reading some insights from some of you. I am a self-taught critical thinker who definitely doesn't have "the whole picture" but would like to understand more.

damn yankee fool