The Guardian has been celebrating their 190th birthday by reposting some of their more prominent older stories under the heading, “Moments that made the Guardian”:
So, as the Guardian’s capacity for self-criticism or reflection hasn’t been one of their greatest strengths, we thought we’d take an unauthorized look at some of the stories and commentaries they would likely soon forget.
In today’s installment, we’re taking you back to 2004, when the “world’s leading liberal voice” decided to give a platform to a deadly terrorist known as Osama Bin Laden, allowing the leader of the malevolent death cult known as Al-Qaeda the chance to urge his Guardian readers to pursue Jihad and resist the “Zionist-crusader chain of evil”:
Subtle that OBL, wasnt’ he?
So while Harriet Sherwood is no doubt still stewing over The JC’s decision to publish an essay by a Jewish professor named Geoffrey Alderman, here’s what her liberal colleagues saw fit to post (under the heading of “comment”) merely seven and a half years ago, while NATO soldiers (and civilians) were being killed in large numbers by Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda affiliated, or inspired, groups.
- Osama bin Laden
- The Guardian, Tuesday 6 January 2004 02.19 GMT
My message is to urge jihad to repulse the grand plots hatched against our nation, such as the occupation of Baghdad, under the guise of the search for weapons of mass destruction, and the fierce attempt to destroy the jihad in beloved Palestine by employing the trick of the road map and the Geneva peace initiative.
The Americans’ intentions have also become clear in statements about the need to change the beliefs and morals of Muslims to become more tolerant, as they put it.
In truth, this is a religious-economic war. The occupation of Iraq is a link in the Zionist-crusader chain of evil. Then comes the full occupation of the rest of the Gulf states to set the stage for controlling and dominating the whole world.
For the big powers believe that the Gulf and the Gulf states are the key to global control due to the presence of the largest oil reserves there. The situation is serious and the misfortune momentous.
The west’s occupation of our countries is old, but takes new forms. The struggle between us and them began centuries ago, and will continue. There can be no dialogue with occupiers except through arms. Throughout the past century, Islamic countries have not been liberated from occupation except through jihad. But, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, the west today is doing its utmost to besmirch this jihad, supported by hypocrites.
Jihad is the path, so seek it. If we seek to deter them with any means other than Islam, we would be like our forefathers, the Ghassanids [Arab tribes living under the Byzantine empire]. Their leaders’ concern was to be appointed kings and officers for the Romans in order to safeguard the interests of the Romans by killing their brothers, the peninsula’s Arabs.
Such is the case of the new Ghassanids, the Arab rulers. Muslims, if you do not punish them for their sins in Jerusalem and Iraq, they will defeat you. They will also rob you of the land of the two holy places [Saudi Arabia].
Today they have robbed you of Baghdad and tomorrow they will rob you of Riyadh unless God deems otherwise. What is the means to stop this tremendous onslaught? Some reformers maintain that all popular and government forces should unite to ward off this crusader-Zionist onslaught.
But the question strongly raised is: are the governments in the Islamic world capable of pursuing their duty to defend the faith and nation and renouncing all allegiance to the United States?
The calls by some reformers are strange. They say that the path to defending the homeland and people passes though the doors of those western rulers. I tell those reformers: if you have an excuse for not pursuing jihad, it does not give you the right to depend on the unjust. God does not need your flattery of dictators.
The Gulf states proved their total inability to resist the Iraqi forces [in 1990-1]. They sought help from the crusaders, led by the United States. These states then came to America’s help and backed it in its attack against an Arab state [Iraq in 2003].
These regimes submitted to US pressure and opened their air, land and sea bases to contribute towards the US campaign, despite the immense repercussions of this move. They feared that the door would be open for bringing down dictatorial regimes by armed forces from abroad, especially after they had seen the arrest of their former comrade in treason and agentry to the United States [Saddam Hussein] when it ordered him to ignite the first Gulf war against Iran, which rebelled against it.
The war plunged the area into a maze from which they have not emerged to this day. They are aware that their turn will come. They do not have the will to make the decision to confront the aggression. In short, the ruler who believes in the above-mentioned deeds cannot defend the country. Those who support the infidels over Muslims, and leave the blood, honour and property of their brothers to their enemy in order to remain safe, can be expected to take the same course against one another in the Gulf states.
Indeed, this principle is liable to be embraced within the state itself. And in fact the rulers have started to sell out the sons of the land by pursuing, imprisoning and killing them. This campaign has been part of a drive to carry out US orders.
Honest people concerned about this situation should meet away from the shadow of these oppressive regimes and declare a general mobilisation to prepare for repulsing the raids of the Romans, which started in Iraq and no one knows where they will end.
- Guardian (Vogue-style) Osama Bin Laden Photo of the Day (cifwatch.com)
- A curious deletion by the ‘Guardians of Hamas’ (cifwatch.com)
- Are suicide bombings acts of “Altruism”? Another Guardian moral inversion (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian: The Palestinians taught the Arab world how to mount intifadas (cifwatch.com)