Words of War

The rhetorical struggle of George W. Bush

& Osama bin Laden

Contents
1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1

On Bush and Bin Laden ................................................................................................. 4

1.2

Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8

1.2.1 The creation of dichotomy between us and them ........................................ 8

1.2.2

Negation of the aggressor .................................................................................. 10

1.2.3

Description of the conflict through narrative ................................................ 11

1.2.4

Appeal to the audience ....................................................................................... 13

1.2.5

Dialogicity and intertextuality .......................................................................... 14

1.3
2

Corpus selection criteria ............................................................................................. 16

Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1

The creation of dichotomy: us vs. them ........................................................... 22

2.2

Negation of the aggressor ........................................................................................... 28

2.3

Description of the conflict the narrative .............................................................. 30

2.4

Appeal to the audience ................................................................................................ 40

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 45

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 52
5.1

George W. Bush ............................................................................................................ 52

5.1.1 11/09/2001 - Address to the Nation .................................................................. 52

5.1.2

15/09/2001 - Radio Address to the Nation .................................................. 53

5.1.3

20/09/2001 Address to a Joint Session of Congress ............................... 55

5.1.4

07/10/2001 - Address to the Nation .............................................................. 63

5.2

Osama bin Laden ......................................................................................................... 66

5.2.1

7/10/2001 The Winds of Faith .................................................................... 66

5.2.2

26/12/2001 - Nineteen Students .................................................................... 67

5.2.3

03/11/2001 Crusader Wars .......................................................................... 77

5.2.4

12/11/2002 To The Allies of America ....................................................... 81

1 Introduction
1.1 On Bush and Bin Laden
George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden are arguably two of the most defining persons of
the beginning of the 21st century. One is accused of coordinating an attack that left
scores of people dead and shook a complacent world. The other invaded two countries
in wars the justification of which is still hotly debated. Time Magazine even elected Bush
to person of the year in 2000 and would have given the title to Bin Laden the subsequent
year if to avoid public outrage- they hadnt honoured Rudy Giulliani, who was mayor of
New York City at the time.
What makes them even more interesting is the extreme ambiguity both characters seem
to embody. To his critics, George W. Bush was a personification of all things undesirable
of Western consumer capitalism. He was considered a thickheaded ignoramus known to
take many a faux pas1. To his supporters, on the contrary, he was an average American
man from Texas who spoke, by both inclination and experience, the plain language of
business, sports and politics. (Noonan in Bush et al., 2003: Foreword). He was able to
counter plummeting polls by assuming the role of commander-in-chief and telling a
simple story about the nation he loved and did so with unquestioning authority. (Hart
and Childers, 2003: p. 3). He was the one who after September 11 took firm control over
his country and guided it through a period of crisis. After the attacks, in just ten days
Bush underwent a metamorphosis for many Americans from an inept usurper into a
competent, strong, and eloquent president. (Bostdorff, 2003: p. 313).
Osama Bin Ladens portrait tends to be equally dichotomous: to many in the West he
epitomizes terrorism and -by association- the horrors of fundamentalist Islam. He
perfectly fits the orientalist image of the irrational bearded fanatic with turban and
scimitar who operates from a remote cave or desert, an arguably overly simplified image
that unfortunately still persists in many media. (Lincoln, 2006; Said, 1997). To his
supporters, on the other hand, he is a pious Muslim who has the guts to stand up against

Critics gratefully turned him into a caricature by making a sport out of catching all of his mistakes,
coining the so-called bushisms.

an overpowering superpower and fight against oppression. He is often even likened to

Saladin, who, in many places throughout the Middle East, is still lauded as the champion
of Islam who took back the city of Jerusalem from Christian crusaders. Bernard Lewis, an
orientalist and historian who was one of the first to focus on Bin Laden and his message,
described his writing as a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic
prose (...) which reveals a version of history that most Westerners will find unfamiliar.
(Lewis, 1998: p. 1).
Both Bush and Bin Laden have always portrayed themselves as each others antithesis,
but rather peculiarly they have both depended on the other to define themselves. Their
antagonistic dance was used to strengthen either position. The international media also
picked up on this antagonism: over a period from September 12 until October 7,
newspapers, radio and television channels referred to president Bush and Osama Bin
Laden hundreds of times. The Washington Post even managed to mention Bush and Bin
Laden, 684 and 490 times respectively, in news stories in less than a month2. According
to B.L. Nacos, a terrible act of terror turned the worlds most notorious terrorist into
one of the worlds leading newsmakers. (Nacos, 2002: p. 151).
Robert Fisk even went as far as saying in an interview with Democracy Now!, the day
before the 2004 presidential election in which the incumbent Bush faced John Kerry,
that Osama Bin Laden wanted Bush to be re-elected so he would further mire the
country into the Middle-East swamp, and cause more American casualties, which Bush
will surely do. (Goodman, 2004). According to CNN's Ed Henry and the Associated
Press' Merrill Hartson, George Bush likewise used Osama Bin Laden and his words as
an attempt to fight American complacency and to defend his record as the fall
campaign season kicks into high gear. (CNNs Henry, 2006). Whatever their reasons
and devices: following the September 11 attacks Bushs job approval rating soared to
86% (Benedetto and O'Driscoll, 2001) and the heavily debated Patriot Act3 was passed
by wide margins in both houses of Congress, thus, according to opponents, dramatically

Through B.L. Nacos, who compiled the data from LexisNexis, a searchable archive of content from
newspapers, magazines and legal documents.
3

In the debate over the proper balance between civil liberties and national security opponents of the act
argued that it held a violation of their privacy, while those in favour contended it is a perfect weapon in the
fight against terrorism and organized crime. (Johnson, 2007: p118).

reducing restrictions on law enforcement agencies ability to gather intelligence on

citizens.
Although after the attacks Osama bin Laden had scant contact with media to avoid
capture by the American troops and the so-called Coalition of the Willing invading
Afghanistan, his image and message were (and are) still continually disseminated. Bin
Laden sent a videotape to the Qatar based international satellite channel Al Jazeera. On
it he praises the suicide hijackers, calling the attacks a divine retribution. The tape,
together with their live broadcasting from Kabul during the invasion, proved to be the
news channels first major scoop. In spite of pressure from American officials the whole
clip was broadcast, resulting in reckless allegations about Al Jazeeras being some kind
of Jihad TV or on-line madrassa. (Lynch, 2006: p. 83). In fact, Al Jazeera was the only
internationally oriented news channel to broadcast the whole clip. American and
European broadcasters complied with the intelligence services appeal for fear of a
hidden message imbedded in the tape.
However, as Al Jazeera only launched its English language broadcasting service in 2006,
the dissemination of this message was at first mainly restricted to Arabic speaking
audiences and limited to the Arabic public sphere. Bin Laden apparently chose Al
Jazeera as his preferred contact point for new messages, and in the subsequent years
several other videotapes, as well as audiocassettes and scanned letters, made their way to
the news channel. The authenticity of some of these supplementary sources attributed to
Bin Laden is, however, still disputed among journalists and officials alike. The texts we
have chosen to use in our corpus, however, have all been accepted as genuine by a
majority of the experts and officials who have examined them, according to James
Howarth, the translator. (Bin Laden et al., 2005: p. ix).
That Bin Laden chose Al Jazeera would seem rather peculiar, since he always appears to
portray himself as ultra-orthodox and conservative to the point that his utopia appears to
be a society similar to that of the first days of Islam. (Zemni, 2006). Notwithstanding
this conservatism Bin Laden and his associates have crafted a series of carefully staged
statements designed for the new media. (Bin Laden, 2005: p. xi). Mark Lynch (2005)
and Bruce Lawrence (Bin Laden et al., 2005) go on to argue that Bin Ladens rise to
prominence mirrors the latest phase of the Information Age, and, in particular, the
renaissance of the Arabic public sphere through the internet and satellite.

George W. Bush made similar use of the international media to broadcast his own
message. He employed the perquisites of his office as president to address his citizens
through national broadcast and try to calm a terror-struck nation. His speech directly
following the attacks was repeated in both national and international media, and can still
be found on public media channels such as Youtube. Transcripts of this address can also
be found easily throughout the Internet. In it he urged his citizens to take heart and not
give up. He had to show the American people the resolve of a commander in chief if
that was going to do whatever it took to win. No yielding, no equivocation. No, you
know, lawyering this thing to death. (Woodward, 2002: p. 96). Subsequent addresses
garnered him a similar amount of attention as journalists and citizens alike anticipated
their countrys response to the attacks and looked to the president as the outer face of
leadership (Greenstein, 2000: p. 5) for information.
The public nature of the addresses and the evident antagonism of both actors is an
essential point in our research since, as we will see, the speeches are mainly
argumentative in kind. That is why we introduced the metaphor of a dance in the
beginning of this introduction, or rather, as Juergensmeyer (2003) does, of a theatre. In
Juergensmeyers study religious attacks are considered a theatre of terror
(Juergensmeyer, 2003: p. 123-124), with the attacks themselves being only part of the
action, the focus actually being on the message. It is a performance violence
(Juergensmeyer, 2003: p. 123-124) meant to pressure the audience. By choosing a
platform, time and public the perpetrator of the violent action can attribute a symbolic
meaning to his or her act. The fact that bin Laden chose to air his message through
international broadcast and instructed the news channel to air it at a specific time seem
to confirm the theatrics at play in bin Ladens message. His subsequent messages display
a similar theatrical flair.
The antagonism that is so prevalent throughout both bin Laden and Bushs speeches
appears to be equally theatrical and perceived rather than factual. A closer reading of
their texts reveals discursive strategies that are quaintly similar. In the light of their
mutual antagonism it would appear rather peculiar that these two men, who at first sight
seem to play an important role on opposite sides of Samuel Huntington's alleged clash of

civilizations4, display so many similarities. It is exactly that distinct peculiarity that drew
our interest and prompted us to write this paper.
We will try and show the many similarities that exist between the discourse of both
actors in the theatre of international politics. To that end we will look into the way they
create a dichotomy between themselves, what strategies they use to negate their enemy
(simultaneously making him appear strong and weak), how the narrative of the conflict
reinforces these images and lastly what discursive strategies they both employ to appeal
to the audience. The structure of this paper is based on Karen Cronicks (2002) paper
on the discourse of President George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden.

1.2 Methodology
We will introduce the theoretical part of this paper with an exposition of the relevant
theories and concepts Edelman, Vanderford, Berger & Luckmann, Renkema and
Fairclough put forward in their own research. Since our methodology to a large extent
delineates the selection criteria of our corpus, we have chosen to first elucidate the ideas
and principles central in our research. A detailed approach on the specifics of our corpus
can be found in subchapter 1.3.

1.2.1 The creation of dichotomy between us and them

The typical rhetorical construction of an enemy works, according to Murray Edelman,
through identifiable persons or stereotypes of persons to whom evil traits, intentions or
actions can be attributed. It is not the [actual] harm that matters but the attribution.
(Edelman, 1988: p. 87). Tuman explains this by saying that all political movements and
conflicts inevitably require lines to be drawn, sides to be defined, and allegiances (or
their absence) declared. (Tuman, 2003: p. 40). Leaders make themselves necessary by

In Huntingtons (1993) article -a reaction to Francis Fukuyamas The End of History and the Last Man,
which later was further developed into a book- he argues that the fault lines between civilizations will be
the battle lines of the future. In this approach he considers civilization the highest rank of cultural identity.
Benjamin Barber and Thomas Friedman made the theory popular in their aptly named books Jihad vs.
McWorld and The Lexus and the Olive Tree. As the validity of the theory is still widely debated we use the
locution of Clash of Civilizations here to represent the fact that both parties consider themselves to be
each others moral antipode.

constructing enemies. In what seems to be an almost inevitable pattern with deep

religious roots, individuals craft a sense of group unity or identification by dividing
themselves from others. Those others are then routinely treated as the enemy.
(Jasinski, 2001: p. 202).
This strategy of establishing two rival camps is one of the more straightforward ways of
dichotomization. Repeated use of the pronouns us as opposed to they allows the speaker
to label the other as dichotomous to the artificially created group of us. This tagging
(Cronick, 2002) of a group as different from and hostile to oneself can have a unifying
effect, since, as Kenneth Burke (1973 in Jasinski, 2001: p. 136) argues, Men who can
unite on nothing else can unite on the basis of a foe shared by all. Discourse about
enemies creates solidarity without consensus. (Kertzer, 1988: p. 67-69). This
discourse about an enemy is not a simple reflection or a representation of an
unambiguous and objective reality, though. Foes are vilified, demonized, degraded and
portrayed as an only partly human driven by irrational desires for conquest. This
language is manifestly a form of action, not a tool for describing a situation, which is
why communication about enemies exemplifies the performance nature of language in
a striking way5. (Edelman, 1988: p. 88).
The word terrorist is a contemporary example of this, and quite relevant for this paper.
Since the attacks of September 11 many official actors (such as state officials, intelligence
services, the military) have appropriated the use of this word to mark any kind of
opposition movements and their actions, be they violent or peaceful. The word itself has,
in the course of the last years, accumulated a number of sometimes conflicting
interpretations, and even legally there does not seem to be one single definition. In his
book on terrorism, Joseph Tuman (2003) for example demonstrates that the definitions
of this so frequently used word can differ greatly.
He lists the various academic, state and international definitions that, though similar, are
subtly different, often projecting an agenda for the author. (Tuman, 2003: p. 5). One
element that appears throughout most definitions is that terrorists are seen as playing
outside the rules, without honour, attacking the innocent and weak, who cannot defend

We will further elaborate on this constitutive function of communication -or narrative, as we will
show- in subchapter 1.2.3.

themselves. (Tuman, 2003: p. 40). This defining of the other is, however, rather a
starting point: the contrast is enlarged as we negotiate the meaning of terrorism
through our own discourse. (Tuman, 2003: p. 42). An example of this strategy is how,
since the attacks, some right wing and conservative groups in the west have begun
semantically connecting Islam with terrorism. To some groups Islam has even become a
condensation symbol inextricably linked with the concept of terrorism, resulting,
according to Edward Said, in a widening gap between the West and the Arab/Muslim
world. (Twair, 2002).
Often the enemy figure is personified, with all concepts and traits undesirable of the
opposition combined into one which, as we mentioned before, helps to focus the fear
and anxiety within a society. This displacement of resentments onto personified targets
makes it easier to grasp the abstraction and fit it in the narration. The concept of
narration and its importance will be further explained in subchapter 1.2.4.

1.2.2 Negation of the aggressor

An extra element to the construction of the discursive image of the enemy is the
paradoxical tendency of social movement groups to portray their antagonists as both
powerful and vulnerable, finding it desirable themselves to feel threatened and
empowered simultaneously. (Vanderford, 1989: p. 176 in Jasinski, 2001).
Jasinski illustrates this paradox with George Kennans pseudonymously published essay
in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs titled The sources of Soviet conduct. Kennans
essay articulated and defended a long-term policy for dealing with the Soviet Union.
Kennan rejected threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward toughness in
favour of a policy of patient and persistent containment. (Jasinski, 2001: p. 204).
Jasinski goes on to demonstrate how Kennan on the one hand depicted the Soviet Union
as crafty, skilful, persistent, ambitious, and (it seemed) powerful. Kennan likened the
political action of the Soviet Union metaphorically to a fluid stream, which moves
constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, towards a given goal. According to Jasinski
the metaphorical comparison of the Soviet Union with a fluid stream suggested a
considerable degree of power. (Jasinski, 2001: p. 204). On the other hand, Kennan
insisted that the Soviet Union was tired and exhausted from its efforts during World War
II.

10

The reasons behind this paradoxical depiction are straightforward: in order for the
United States to have a valid reason to heavily invest in military and intelligence, the
Soviet Union had to be strong and intimidating, a looming foe, waiting to take a swing at
prosperous, enlightened America. At the same time the Soviet Union also had to be
vulnerable, since if it were untouchable those heavy investments would be pointless.
The Soviets had to appear like the star that still shines after it has burned out because
that satisfied the solvency condition of Kennans political work. (Kennan in Jasinski,
2001: p. 204).
A more recent illustration is the official discourse that surrounded the invasion of Iraq of
2003. American officials disseminated a double image of the country and its leader,
Saddam Hussein. Reports on the production of alleged weapons of mass destruction
were contrasted with optimistic forecasts on the swiftness with which the Iraqi army
would be routed and its government would be toppled. Saddam Hussein was similarly
painted as a cunning mastermind while at the same time he was portrayed as wielding
phantom power over an insubordinate army that would defect as soon as American
troops reached them. American officials further reinforced the image of their own
vulnerability by linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. This direct link provided
a foundation for a strategy of victimization.
At the same time as the enemy is portrayed as powerful/vulnerable, a group will try to
make itself into a victim of that enemy. This depiction of the situation as a conflict
between threat and threatened thus gives it a moral right and duty to be aggressive
towards the enemy. (Cronick, 2002: p. 7). Likewise, to return to our example,
American officials chose to ignore calls for diplomacy and pressured the U.N. to support
the invasion by emphasizing its moral right. George W. Bush remarked during a speech
before the General Assembly that the purposes of the United States should not be
doubted, and that the just demands of peace and security will be met. (Bush: U.S.
will move on Iraq if U.N. wont, 2002).

1.2.3 Description of the conflict through narrative

Berger and Luckmann elaborate on the importance of discourse and language in the
explanation of their theory on the social construction of reality. Social
constructionism, they argue, emphasizes the importance of language because, by

11

allowing us to label, organize, and explain the world we live in, language typifies
experience; and through the course of socialization, the meanings behind the words are
internalized, affecting our identities as individuals and as societies, as well as mollifying
our inherent fear of anomy. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: p. 39). Many nations define
themselves in terms of a common language, which become sheltering symbols of the
societys symbolic universe. (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: p. 104). They appropriate
words such as freedom, faithfulness or for example justness and build a discourse around
these symbols.
The importance of that common language and its inherent symbols greatly appreciates
in value in times of conflict and crisis because that is the time when we insist on rhetoric.
We hear a call to find meaning in the face of unexpected or threatening events, and we in
turn call for our leaders to articulate a vision to which we can subscribe. We long for
eloquence and acknowledge its power. (Zarefsky, 2004: p. 137). Leader figures in
return provide us with narratives that help us bring structure and meaning to our
everyday lives. Sequences of events are transformed into narratives through a
combination of temporal succession and causality. (Martin, 1986 in Jasinski, 2001: p.
390). Leader figures articulate the world we live in and provide us with a relatively
simple and linear story through this transformation. They wield considerable power,
since in these moments, rhetoric has the ability to reshape our world by altering our
sense of who we are, by replacing the narrative structure in which we understand events,
by changing our hierarchies of value and importance, and by causing us to see old
realities in a new light. (Zarefsky, 2004: p. 137).
The narrative offered by our leaders, however, does not hold exclusive sway over how
contingencies are defined and construed. As Martin writes: News of the world comes to
us in the form of stories, told from one or another point of view. Through the
international media and the internet the global drama unfolds every twenty-four hours,
split up into multiple story lines that can be reintegrated only when they are understood
from the perspective of an American (or Russian, or Nigerian), a Democrat (or
Republican, or monarchist, or Marxist), a Protestant (or Catholic, or Jew, or Muslim).
(Martin, 1986: p. 7-8). These perspectives are ceaselessly contending to gain the upper
hand and attain a dominant position. Likewise the official stories of nation builders
exist in an uneasy relationship to those individuals and groups left out of these stories.
(Wald, 1995: p. 2). How successful this alternative narrative is in disrupting and

12

usurping the dominant story partly depends on various factors, which we will further
illustrate in subchapter 2.3.
Since in our analysis we will also briefly discuss the rhetorical functions of narrative, we
have chosen to use Jasinskis approach, which is to employ the effects of rhetorical
practice. Jasinski distinguishes three: the aesthetic or visceral, the instrumental, and the
constitutive. This should show us how narratives induce [certain rhetorical effects] in
audiences. (Jasinski, 2001: p. 392).
Aesthetic rhetoric, according to Chatman, refers to a fictions suasion that its unfolding
form be accepted. (Chatman, 1990: p. 189). Its the authors effort to control or shape
the readers (or audiences) response and impose a certain worldview. (Booth, 1983).
Narratives function instrumentally, on the other hand, when they help to shape and
transform how a community understands its world and when they offer inducements to
create, recreate, or transform the social world. (Jasinski, 2001: p. 393). In this function,
in other words, the author wields the narrative as an instrument to achieve a certain goal.
The constitutive rhetorical function, lastly, refers to the way in which a narrative relates
or positions itself with respect to a cultures social world. (Jasinski, 2001: p. 398). This
social world entails the customs, traditions, values, shared beliefs, roles, institutions,
memories, and language that become a type of second nature to the members of that
culture. (Jasinski, 2001: p. 398). As we already mentioned in the beginning of this
subchapter, the author of a narrative can challenge or confirm these beliefs.
We will focus on both the instrumental and the constitutive function, since they tie into
Norman Faircloughs theory of intertextuality and dialogicity, which will be explained in
subchapter 1.2.5.

1.2.4 Appeal to the audience

The purpose of argumentative discourse is persuasion of the audience in thinking,
feeling and acting. (Renkema, 2004: p. 207). In order to achieve this goal three main
factors have been distinguished since classical rhetoric: logos, ethos and pathos.

13

Through a combined use of this classical triadic pattern a speaker can influence his
audience and persuade them.
Logos encompasses the logical arguments that together can lead to logical conclusions.
(Braas et al., 2006: p. 53). These arguments tend to be concrete in nature, tangible and
factual. They form the foundation of a plea or argument through structure and rules.
(Renkema, 2004: p. 207).

Ethos on the other hand regards the elements that deal with the credibility of the orator.
It is everything about the speaker that influences the hearers attitude towards the
message. (Renkema, 2004: p. 207). This includes reputation, social status,
trustworthiness, etc. Persuasion is aspired through personality and stance. Speakers can
allude to a common shared background as opposed to the other -a discursive strategy
that was explained in subchapter 1.2.1. and will be demonstrated in our analysis.
Pathos, lastly, refers to all the emotions that an orator has to evoke in his audience in
order to persuade. (Renkema, 2004: p. 207). According to Braas et al. usage of pathos
in an argumentation is generally disapproved of since it is considered a form of
manipulation that has little to do with logical argumentation and quickly leads to
fallacies, demagoguery or propaganda. (Braas et al., 2006: p. 54). This does not,
however, mean that its usage is unequivocally lambasted, Braas et al. continue: when
used in moderation and in the right context it becomes an important component of an
argument. (Braas et al., 2006: p. 54).
In effective arguments all three factors are balanced against and influenced by context,
subject and reaction of the audience. Thus a speaker is able to seize the audiences
attention and retain it, increasing his chances of persuading them.

1.2.5 Dialogicity and intertextuality

Two elements that run throughout all previous subchapters and proved relevant enough
to our analysis to warrant a separate subchapter are dialogicality and intertextuality as
described by Norman Fairclough and Michael Holquist.

14

In every text different voices are present. In newspaper articles perhaps this is clearest, as
journalists often quote or summarize what other persons have said, written or thought,
thus directly and explicitly voicing external sources. Of course there are also other, more
subtle ways to incorporate intertextuality. A discourse with a high degree of
intertextuality, which is rich in references to other discourses and open to other voices, is
more dialogical than a discourse that uses a lot of assumption. Such a discourse is closed
to other voices and therefore dialogicality is diminished.
Fairclough differentiates between five different scenarios, describing a spectrum that
goes from complete openness to a complete suppression of openness. The first scenario
is an openness to, acceptance of, recognition of difference; an exploration of difference,
as in dialogue in the richest sense of the term. In the second scenario dialogicality is
slightly diminished in the sense that difference is accentuated and a polemic, a struggle
over meaning, norms and power ensues. The third scenario entails an attempt to
resolve or overcome difference. In scenario four openness is taken down another notch:
difference is bracketed and instead a focus on commonality, solidarity follows. In the
last scenario a speaker seeks a normalization and acceptance of differences of power
which brackets or suppresses difference of meaning and norms. Consensus ensues.
(Fairclough, 2003: p.42). The actual openness or dialogicality of a discourse usually falls
somewhere on the gradient that connects these scenarios.
Contrary to newspaper articles, for example, speeches usually tend to be less open to
different voices since the speaker/creator of the text will usually opt to diminish the
different voices surrounding a topic. This does not mean, however, that they that they
are entirely closed since texts are inevitably and unavoidably dialogical in the sense that
any utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of other utterances with
which it enters into one kind of relation or another. (Fairclough, 2003: p. 42). Note for
example that what is said in a text can also be held against a background of what is left
unsaid, but taken as given.
This is perhaps one of the most powerful mechanisms an author can employ in
constructing a text, since such claims may or may not be substantiated, and assumptions
can thus be manipulatively passed off as general truths. It is there that the power and
relevance of this theory for our research lie: assumptions are of particular significance in
terms of the ideological work of texts. (Fairclough, 2003: p. 61). Applying these

15

concepts to our corpus may give us a view of how these mechanisms of dialogicity and
intertextuality are used in relation to the ideological background of the speakers and may
illustrate the constitutive and instrumental rhetorical devices, which we introduced in
subchapter 1.2.3. Because of the explicit antagonism between the orators we expect
some of these mechanisms to become self-evident.

1.3 Corpus selection criteria

For our corpus we selected several texts attributed to both George W. Bush and Osama
bin Laden.
Instead of a quantitative approach we have chosen to elucidate certain parts in the texts
and discuss them in detail, since in our opinion a close and focussed reading of these
addresses could yield more relevant results. We specifically chose to discuss political
addresses since speeches of this kind tend to be foremost argumentative in nature and
reveal much about which ideological background the speaker adheres to6. According to
Price political discourse is a pragmatic condition in which propositions are advanced
concerning the status of various phenomena, thus severing the connection between
expression and the necessary existence of beliefs. (Price, 2007: p. 175).
He contends that the first and foremost purpose of a political address seems to be to
achieve outcomes, rather than to build core beliefs in audiences. (Price, 2007: p. 175).
This corresponds to the instrumental function of narrative we previously explained in
the corresponding subchapter 1.2.4 , but appears to conflict with our presupposition that
political addresses reveal much about a speakers ideological background. Price
continues though: Conversely, this does not mean to say that propositions cannot be
founded on ideological positions. (Price, 2007: p. 175).
Because, as we demonstrated in our introduction, the events of September 11th have
been a pivotal point for both Bush and bin Laden, we specifically focussed on the
speeches that were published by the international media around that time and with that

Political speech is ideological, in that it comes from a series of beliefs (Beard, 2000: p. 18) and
persuasive in that it is a vital part of the politicians role in announcing policy and persuading people to
agree with it. (Beard, 2000: p. 35).

16

distinct subject. Because of their distinctly polemical nature focussing on these texts
might provide us with better insight into the ideological positions of both speakers. The
main goal of our analysis will be to demonstrate that there does not appear to be a large
difference the way they submit these positions.
To assemble the Bush part of our corpus we made use of the book We Will Prevail:
President George W. Bush on war, terrorism, and Freedom. (Bush, 2003). For this book
National Review selected and edited the speeches of George W. Bush that dealt with the
attacks of September 11. Since they are widely disseminated throughout the Internet
and media we were also able to find video and audio clips, but since in this paper we will
focus specifically on the textual dimensions of the selected texts, where relevant only a
short description of context and setting will be given.
In that perspective, an appropriate speech when it comes to setting was the presidential
address to the nation George W. Bush gave immediately following the attacks. (Bush et
al., 2003: p. 2-4). The website of CNN provides both a transcript and a video of the
actual speech. An audio recording can also be found on the website of the American
Presidency Project, which collects and lists all speeches and addresses of American
presidents.
The speech was aired live from the Oval Office, which carries a major significance in
itself since this is the official office of the president of the United States and thus
represents the power of the executive branch of the U.S. (Digital New Oxford American
Dictionary, Version 2.1.3). This office has also become associated with key moments in
American history. Use of the Oval Office for television broadcasts is rare, and it is mostly
reserved for occasions with a sense of gravity. Dan Bartlett, senior adviser to George W.
Bush, said in an interview with the New York Times that Bush was very conscious of that
fact: he felt it should be reserved only for the most solemn of speeches. () The tone
was really set on 9/11. It seemed like anything less than that diminished the decision to
go to war, so we really used it sparingly. (Calmes, 2010).
In this particular speech, directly behind the president both the American flag and the
presidential one can be seen. The presidents flag carries the E Pluribus Unum motto,
which echoes the themes of unity and strength in Bushs statement. In our analysis we
will go into the textual details of this speech and the others in our selection.

17

The second text in our corpus is George W. Bushs Presidential Radio Address to the
Nation, which was aired on September 15, 2001. (Bush et al., 2003: p. 8-9). Our third
choice is the Presidential Address to a Joint Session of Congress on September 23, 2001.
(Bush et al., 2003: p. 11-18). The last text we chose was the Presidential Address to the
Nation that was aired on October 7, 2001, from the White House Treaty Room. (Bush
et al., 2003: p. 33-35). All transcripts can be found in We Will Prevail: President George W.
Bush on war, terrorism, and Freedom. (Bush et al., 2003).
We found a compendium of speeches of Osama bin Laden that, similar to National
Reviews selection of Bush speeches, deals specifically with the topic of September 11.
Bruce Lawrence edited the texts that where translated from Arabic into English by James
Howarth and assembled them in Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin
Laden. (Bin Laden et al., 2005). As Lawrence correctly states in the introduction to his
anthology, the texts are hard to come by since for the most part, his voice has been
tacitly censored, as if to hear it clearly and without cuts or interruption would be too
dangerous. (Lawrence, 2005: p. 1).
Fragments of both the Arabic speeches and their English translations can be found here
and there, but because of the initial appeal of intelligence services to not broadcast or
print full versions of the texts, they are still proving hard to find. Pieter Nanninga, a PhD
researcher and friend at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at
the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, was kind enough to provide us with the original Arabic
texts, which he himself collected from several sources.
We compared the translations provided by Howarth with the original Arabic texts and
with translations found on the website of BBC as well as those compiled by the Foreign
Broadcast Information Service7. Since the texts collected by Lawrence are thematically
centred on the attacks of September 11 and because of the consistency in translations
(seeing that there was only one translator for all texts) we decided to use his book to
assemble the bin Laden part of our corpus. This has both advantages and disadvantages,

The Foreign Broadcast Information Service or FBIS (now Open Source Center) was a component of
the CIA and monitored, translated and disseminated open source media from media sources outside the
United States. Although use of the information on the website is limited to American government
personnel, this particular file was available for download through the website of the New York Times.

18

some of which the translator of the texts also touches upon in the introduction to the
book. For clarity and flow of language, religious formulae that normally follow the
invocation of God or the Prophet Muhammad have been omitted. (Bin Laden et al.,
2005: p ix). This way readers who are less familiar with Islamic texts can read the texts
without stumbling over formulaic complexities.
Similarly, some Arabic terms where translated into English, although a handful have
been retained in the original Arabic due to their intrinsically untranslatable nature.(Bin
Laden et al., 2005: p ix). These are mostly words that, due to their frequent use in the
media, have become familiar to many readers in the West. Terms like jihad and umma
are more or less known, even though some nuances may be lost. Where relevant we will
discuss the significance of some of these words in their contexts.
In a series of statements issued since 1996 bin Laden repeated his characterization of a
so-called new crusade led by America against the Islamic nations, and emphasized his
belief that an emerging conflict between Islam and the West would be fought between
the Islamic world and the Americans and their allies(Blanchard, 2005: p. 14), echoing
the theory of the clash of civilizations that was introduced by Fukuyama (1992).
The first text we chose for our corpus is the first videotaped speech of Osama bin Laden
that was broadcast after the attacks of September 11. The tape was recorded before the
attacks and sent to the Al Jazeera news station with the instructions to broadcast it
immediately after the United States had started their invasion of Afghanistan on October
7, 2001. Since this meant the tape was broadcast immediately after George W. Bushs
announcement that troops had crossed the Afghan border8, it appeared as if bin Laden
was addressing Bus directly in a reply, even though the message had been recorded in
advance. Bruce Lawrence decided to title this speech The Winds of Faith, after an
evocative phrase from the text that bin Laden uses to emphasize the divide between the
camp of the faithful and that of the unbelievers. He calls on the infidel armies to leave
Saudi-Arabia -where the U.S. army has a base- and expresses this demand
metaphorically: The winds of faith and change have blown to remove falsehood from
the peninsula of Mohammed. (Bin Laden et al., 2005: p. 103-105).

A few hours after Bush had addressed the nation in Washington, and some minutes after Blair had
spoken in Britain. (Bin Laden et al., 2005: p.103).

19

As with Bushs first addresses, this is an appropriate speech to discuss when it comes to
setting and background. The video itself proved quite hard to track down, but since
there are some stills available on various news websites, we chose to use those instead.
More specifically we used a still provided on the website of BBC News above a
(translated) transcript of the speech. (Bin Ladens warning: full text, 2001). In the still,
bin Laden can bee seen wearing a camouflage jacket and traditional headdress. In the
background the front part of a Kalashnikov gun can be seen leaning against the wall.
The gun could be a symbol both of armed struggle9 and of the fact that Osama bin Laden
and his so-called mujahedeen fighters are far from powerless. The retreat of the Soviet
Union from Afghanistan in 1989 -in which a lot of Russian weaponry such as the
Kalashnikov was abandoned- was in part caused by the constant attacks of the
mujahedeen fighters, who received support from the U.S., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and
other nations. The wall behind bin Laden seems to be that of a cave, which corresponds
with the possibility that the recording was made in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Together with the long beard -a symbol of piety- the still seems to convey the image of a
freedom fighter who has given up everything in his struggle for justice.
To his adherents he is one of the faithful, who abandoned his allegedly large fortune,
which he earned through the construction company of his family, to pursue a life of
sanctified struggle against a mighty oppressor. It corresponds with his likening to Saladin,
and seems to fit into the legend of Osama bin Laden as it persists in parts of the Arabic,
or rather Islamic public sphere. As we will demonstrate in our analysis, this image is also
the one appears to be vindicating in his language use and rhetorical constructions.
The second text we chose for our corpus is a statement that was delivered in the form of
a letter to Al-Jazeeras Kabul bureau ten days before the Northern Alliance entered the
city. It was read out by an Al-Jazeera newscaster and broadcast on November 3. The
speech was titled Crusader Wars by Lawrence and offers an alternative narrative to 20th
century history that echoes Fukuyamas Clash of Civilizations. Bin Laden calls on all

Since the Kalashnikov is among the most commonly smuggled small arms sold to governments, rebels,
criminals, and civilians, its prevalence in armed conflicts is high. Hezbollah, the Shiite political and
paramilitary organization based in Lebanon, even chose to use it in its flag.

20

Muslims to stand together in resistance to the war of annihilation long waged against
them. (Bin Laden et al., 2005: p. 133).
The third text we chose for our corpus is the one that was broadcast on Al Jazeera on
December 26, 2001. It was also recorded in advance and was to be shown on or near
Christmas day. (Bin Laden et al., 2005: p. 145-157). Lawrence titled this one Nineteen
students since the main message of this statement is that not nineteen Arab states, but
nineteen post-secondary students who shook Americas throne. (Ibid.). The last text we
picked is one of the briefest of bin Ladens messages and was delivered to Al Jazeera as an
audiotape and broadcast November 12, 2002. (Bin Laden et al., 2005: p. 173-175).
All transcripts can be found in Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin
Laden. (Bin Laden et al., 2005).
To retain an overview and structure in our analysis we will use Cronicks (2002) style of
reference to make clear which part of which text we are talking about: first the
abbreviation of the name of the author is noted (GWB for George W. Bush and OBL for
Osama bin Laden), followed by a dash and a number that refers to the text the quote was
taken from. The texts are in the order we introduced them in this chapter, which is
chronological. The number after the slash indicates the paragraph the quote was selected
from. For example GWB-3/32 indicates the quote was taken from text three of the
George W. Bush Corpus, and that we are talking specifically about paragraph 32. For
ease of use we have included all selected texts in the appendix.

21

2 Analysis
2.1 The creation of dichotomy: us vs. them
The world as Bush and bin Laden portray it in their addresses is a monochrome one that
leaves little room for deviation. It is a discursive strategy that is very recurrent
throughout our entire corpus, and the consistency with which they apply it allows them
to construct a Manichaean struggle, where the Sons of Light confront Sons of
Darkness. (Lincoln, 2006: p. 1). Either you are with them, or you are against them.
George W. Bush makes that point succinctly.
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us,
or you are with the terrorists. From this day forwards, any nation that continues to
harbour or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile
regime.
(GWB-3/30)

There is no room for grey areas in which nonaligned groups can withdraw since in this
conflict, there is no neutral ground (GWB-3/35). Osama bin Laden is equally
uncompromising in his discourse.
I tell you that these events have split the entire world into two camps: one of faith,
with no hypocrites, and one of unbelief may God protect us from it.
(OBL-1/5)

Reality is broken up into two spheres: the sacred cosmos and chaos. To be in a right
relationship with the sacred cosmos is to be protected against the nightmare threats of
chaos. To fall out of such a right relationship is to be abandoned on the edge of the
abyss of meaninglessness, which is chaos; it is where a society is rhetorically placed when
it is nihilated. (Menegatos, 2007, p. 9). The enemy is presented as irrational, his
arguments side-lined as marginal and disjointed reasoning that holds little value, if they
are even mentioned at all. In George W. Bushs case, for example, the logic behind
Osama bin Ladens argumentation is simplified to the point that a subtle, complex
rhetorical performance and a revealing piece of evidence (Lincoln, 2001: p. 1) is

22

transformed into the ramblings of a loony fundamentalist. Al Qaedas -and, in extension

bin Ladens- goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people
everywhere. (GWB-3/14).
They hate our freedoms our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our
freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to drive
Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast
regions of Asia and Africa.
(GWB-3/24 & 25)

Osama bin Ladens representation of Bushs arguments appears a bit more accurate,
although he is meticulous in picking out precisely those arguments that, in the narrative
of Muslim suffering by American actions -which we will analyse more thoroughly in
subchapter 2.3- acquire an air of arrogance and hypocrisy.
They came to fight Islam and its people on the pretext of fighting terrorism.
Hundreds of thousands, young and old, were killed in Japan, the most distant land
but this is not a war crime, just an issue to be looked into.
(OBL-1/5)

By taking the concept of terrorism, which had already been repeated so often in Bushs
common parlance that its meaning has come to seem transparent and its
appropriateness self-evident (Lincoln, 2001: p. 1), and by explaining or translating it
into concepts derived from his own universe the negation of ones symbolic universe is
more than rejected; it is twisted into an affirmation of the society it was meant to negate,
the presupposition being that the negator does not really know what he is saying.
(Berger and Luckmann in Menegatos, 2007: p. 9).
A complex and variegated world is compressed into the tidy schema of two rival camps
(Lincoln, 2001: p. 1) that each claim to be Gods chosen society. These camps and the
symbolic universes they represent are pictured as mutually exclusive, since God can only
make one choice, and translated into condensation symbols (Graber, 1976) that have
predominantly religious connotations. Bin Ladens vocabulary is replete with words like
faith, jihad, disbeliever and hypocrite, which in his particular symbolic universe help
construe a narrative that talks of divine retribution. Bush uses a similar strategy, and

23

brings something extra to the language of certainty -a tendency to use religious

language as if it were political language. (Hart & Childers, 2005: p. 12). In his
announcement on the eve of the attacks on Afghanistan, he states:
Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that
God is not neutral between them.
(GWB-3/54)

Menegatos sees this statement as indicative of the messianic-millenarian theodicy that is

prevalent in George W. Bushs speeches. The theodicy refers to Americas civil religion
that gives the nation a sacred history and a sacred mission for the future. It is a religious
orientation, heavily influenced by Christianity, one that played a crucial role in the
development of American institutions and still adds a religious dimension for the whole
fabric of American life, including the political sphere.(Menegatos, 2007, p. 5).
Bush, as a proponent of this messianic-millenarian theodicy, has the ability to couple
religious refrains with a kind of patriotic fundamentalism, (Hart & Childers, 2005: p.
12) which results in a narrative about the sacred role the United States has been awarded.
Several of Bushs end phrases demonstrate this belief.
May God continue to bless America.
(GWB-4/18)

In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the
United States.
(GWB-3/55)

Osama bin Laden echoes this sacred mission that god has bestowed upon him in the first
line of the Winds of Faith speech.

24

He whom Gods guides will not go astray, and he whom he leads astray can have
not guide.
(OBL-1/1)

At times, his discourse bordered on the prophetic (Lincoln, 2001: p.1), as for example
when he states:
I swear by God Almighty, Who raised the heavens without effort that neither
America nor anyone who lives there will enjoy safety until safety becomes a reality
for us living in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of
Mohammed. God is greatest and glory to Islam.
(OBL-1/6)

We will further discuss this in our subchapter on narrative.

As we also mentioned in our methodology, the use of pronouns can offer us another
valuable insight into how dichotomy is created. Both orators use the contrast between
us and they to signify the dichotomy that exists between them. A straightforward way
to analyse this dichotomy in the speeches of George W. Bush is to consider the incidence
of pronouns in their particular context. When Bush states that they stand against us,
because we stand in their way (GWB-2/21), he uses an evocative construction that
appears to mirror his narrative: they are attacking us from the outside, but we are
standing strong in the centre against them.
Analogously, in the original Arabic speeches of Osama bin Laden, we looked at the
incidence of relevant pronominal constructions and focussed particularly on affixes and
verbal morphology since Arabic only uses isolated pronouns in constructions with the
verb to be or to stress emphasis. In the following example we were able to find several
examples of the various constructions.

25

The very least you can say about these people is that they are immoral, dissolute,
apostates, who help the butcher slaughter his victim and help the oppressor against
the innocent child. May God Almighty protect me against them, and may He give
them what they deserve.
(OBL-1/4)

" !
".
(OBL-1/8)

The pronoun them is repeated several times explicitly through the suffix , which
contrasts with the suffix or us/we. Although a literal translation would yield the
pronoun us instead of me in the sentence may God Almighty protect me against them,
Howarth chose the latter in his rendition. Since most of the alterations of this sort in his
translation were found in religious formulae, we venture that this choice was perhaps
rather one of stylistic consideration and therefore practical rather than interpretive.
There are several instances in which the pronoun you or a similar pronominal
construction is used as well, and the main goal of this strategy is in all likelihood to draw
the you into close association with the us and away from the enemy them. (Lincoln,
2001: p. 1). Bin Laden for example appeals to part of his audience that still needs to be
convinced when, after first detailing how certain actions of America is nothing less than
crusader hatred he asks them a question.
Can you not understand this? It is very clear.
(OBL-2/31)

""
(OBL-2/31)

By asking this question bin Laden appears to demonstrate his awareness of the fact that
there are deviating opinions. It appears to open up his discourse with a staged dialogue
with an imaginary interlocutor, but simultaneously blocks off the dissenting view by
stating that there is no doubt possible: the situation, as it is, is clear.

26

This discursive strategy of a pre-emptive counter is manifest throughout the majority of

bin Ladens addresses, in faux question form or even in plain statements.
I tell you, the matter is very clear.
(OBL-1/9)

Inherent to this proclamation are the questions dissenting voices may ask, but these are,
as we demonstrated, blocked by the assertion that there can be no doubt.
Besides pronouns, Bush and bin Laden also employ other ways of referring to each other
to further enlarge the contrast between us and them. America is the head of global
unbelief and a nation of hypocrites and crusaders (words the significance of which is
detailed in the subchapter on narrative). Bin Laden even refers to George W. Bush as
Pharaoh, who, as is described in the books of all the Abrahamic faiths, subjected you to
terrible torment, slaughtering your sons and sparing only your women. (OBL-2/10).
By using these locutions to produce a binary division of the world both speakers are
creating a new reality in which it is easy to attribute evil traits, intentions and actions to
the other camp. As we mentioned in our methodology, these attributions make it easy to
start seeing the opposing group as a stereotype, which in turn makes it easy to attach
emotional tags (Cronick, 2002) to this group. Bush denounces his adversaries as
terrorists who committed treacherous and horrific violence against innocent Americans
and individuals from other countries. They are enemies of freedom who plotted evil
plans. (GWB-3/3). In doing so they wield authorative language, as we described in
our subchapter on dialogization. Bakhktin states that a word, discourse, language, or
culture undergoes dialogization when it becomes relativized, de-privileged, aware of
competing definitions for the same thing. (Holquist, 1981: p 426-7).
In the previous examples the opposite discursive strategy was used, hence suppressing
any differentiating view. In doing so George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are able to
unite their own group against the enemy. With their language, they do not merely
describe the other though: they wield these rhetorical devices as a way to turn the other
group into a stereotype and try to diffuse the arguments the opposition uses by
denouncing their arguments, the presupposition being that the other does not really
know what he is saying.

27

George W. Bush even goes so far as to use a reductio ad Hitlerem10, proving Godwins
law correct. He argues that terrorist groups are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of
the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -by abandoning every
value except the will to power- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and
totalitarianism. (GWB-3/27).

2.2 Negation of the aggressor

The strange ambiguity of the enemy being portrayed as powerful and vulnerable at the
same time appears to run throughout all of the texts in our corpus. On the one hand
Osama bin Laden denounces the West (and the United States in particular) as an
overpowering giant that has oppressed and enslaved the world. He mentions the
American blockade of Iraq that killed a million innocent children and attributes the
oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israelis to the US as well since they are the
ones that support the Zionists.
What Bush the Pharaoh of the age- is doing, killing our sons in Iraq, and what
Americas ally Israel is doing, using American aeroplanes to bomb houses in
Palestine with old men, women and children in them, was enough for the sane
leaders among you to distance themselves from this criminal gang. Our people have
suffered murder and torture in Palestine for nearly a century.
(OBL-4/3)

America is the disgraceful looming superpower that slaughtered hundreds of thousands,

young and old, () in Japan (OBL-1/5) and dares to call an act of vengeance for these
crimes terrorism.
This attribution of horrific crimes enforces the image of America as a looming giant, that
for eighty years has been allowed to do as it pleased, unpunished. It is then that the
ambiguity is made apparent, since even though America seemed untouchable, God has

10

A reductio ad Hitlerem is a form of reductio ad absurdum that claims that an idea or policy leads to
-or is the same as- one advocated or implemented by Hitler or the Third Reich, and so proves that the
original policy is undesirable.

28

struck America at its Achilles heel11 and destroyed its greatest buildings. (OBL-1/2). This
time the roles were reversed and it was America that was filled with terror from north to
south and from east to west. (OBL-1/2). Bin Laden meticulously shows how even a
superpower can be brought down when he describes the financial and the physical
struggle that must be wrought in order to do so.
Even if the distance between us and the American military base is very great, and
our weapons do not match up to their planes, we are able to soak up the pressure of
these strikes with our broad defence lines. And in another way it is possible to strike
the economic base that is the foundation of the military base, so when their
economy is depleted they will be too busy with each other to be able to enslave poor
peoples.
(OBL-2/26)

Similarly Bush conveys the image of the United States as an innocent nation that
suffered under the unprovoked attacks. We are a country awakened to danger and called
to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. (GWB-3/6). Bush
conveys the story that the only reason the attackers were able to succeed was that his
country was caught off guard because it thought it had nothing to fear since it was a
peaceful nation. The attackers were able to penetrate so deep into America and strike
critical targets, but the United States still stands strong.
These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and
retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong. [] Terrorist attack can shake
the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of
America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American
resolve.
(GWB-1/2 & 3)

Correspondingly, the enemy are weak, since they stand alone in their convictions.

11

A metaphorical rather than a literal translation by Howarth, that here seems very fitting. The original
Arabic reads , which translated literally yields God,
the Almighty, has struck [America] at one if its weak points.

29

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected
by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics a fringe movement
that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.
(GWB 3/15)

The Taliban, who harbour the leaders of the al Qaeda network and facilitate terrorist
training by allowing camps, are not even supported by their own people.
Afghanistans people have been brutalized many are starving and many have
fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a
television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be
jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.
(GB3/18)

America on the other hand respects these mistreated people and, because during the
invasion American troops will drop food, medicine, and supplies to the starving and
suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan (GWB-4/5), they will know the
generosity of America and its allies.
At the same time, however, the idea of a global and formless (and perhaps) deformed
enemy that can attack us anywhere (Cronick, 2002: p. 12) is transferred: Our nation
has been put on notice: we are not immune from attack. (GWB-3/31). Even though bin
Ladens movement is relatively small and weak, they are still linked to many other
organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic
movement in Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than sixty countries.
They are recruited from their own nations and neighbourhoods and brought to camps in
places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to
their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. (GWB3/16).

2.3 Description of the conflict the narrative

Language typifies experience (Berger & Luckmann, 1966: p39), and through that
language a narrative can be constructed. The September 11 narrative possessed all the
qualities a useful story should have -good vs. evil, yesterday vs. tomorrow, might vs.

30

fecklessness- and it lent itself to the starkly simple motifs Mr Bush prefers. Not
surprisingly, then, he told his story constantly, adjusting it to local circumstances but
never abandoning its powerful rhythms and counterpoints. (Hart & Childers, 2005, p.
19). It is not surprising then, also, that the story George W. Bush tells appears to begin
on September 11th. There is in his narrative little room for precedents that may have lead
to these events. Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges (GWB-3/46), he
contends. In following speeches the same theme is repeated.
Yet, as we have learned, so suddenly and so tragically, there can be no peace in a
world of sudden terror. In the face of todays new threat, the only way to pursue
peace is to pursue those who threaten it.
(GWB-4/9)

The attacks where sudden and abrupt, shaking a peaceful nation without provocation.
Bushs use of narrative is particularly telling and remarkable by the way it changed after
9/11. It is exactly this differentiation Childers and Hart researched: Where he directly
after his electoral victory appeared cautious and crisp and attached himself to no
grand narratives but instead [commented] precisely on the exigencies of the day, the
attacks completely changed George W. Bushs approach to governance, politics and
himself and changed him on rhetorical levels as well. (Hart & Childers, 2005: p. 16).
They show how the attacks gave rise to a sharp and continuing increase in Bushs selfassurance and, most important, they gave him a dramatic story to tell. (Hart & Childers,
2005: p. 17). The story he told was one of some monumental battle against evil that the
greatest generation fought during WWII; like that generation, he urged, todays
Americans would be victorious -and he would be the one to lead the nation to victory.
(Bostdorff, 2003: p. 301).
America has stood down enemies before, Bush states, and we will do so this time. (GWB1/12). He makes the link to Americas righteous ordeals throughout history explicit
when he declares that a great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist
attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the
foundation of America. (GWB-1/3). Through this notion he also makes a direct link to
another direct attack on American soil that almost every American citizen knows about

31

and considers an unjustified, unanticipated and unfair aggression (Cronick, 2002: p.

12): the attacks on Pearl Harbour.
Americans have known wars -but for the past 136 years they have been wars on
foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties
of war -but not at the centre of a great city on a peaceful morning.
(GWB-3/12)

The motive behind this reference may be an implicit promise: initially the attacks left the
United States fazed and confused, but in the end the nation emerged utterly victorious
from its battle against an evil opponent. The reference is vague though, and requires that
his audience be acquainted with this event. In a later speech -on October 24, 2001, to
employees of the Dixie Printing company, he does voice the reference explicitly.
A frequent point in his narrative is his focus on Americas strength and determination:
despite the horrific attacks that were meant to cripple the United States the functions of
our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington, which had to
be evacuated today, are reopening for essential personnel tonight, and will be open for business
tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open
for business as well. (GWB-1/8). After the attacks we will prevail appears to have
become one of the core messages of Bushs speeches, and it is repeated in more or less
the same way throughout his addresses. America is steadfast, and will not flinch. We will
not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. (GWB-3/51). It is not surprising that the
title of the book in which his speeches are collected is exactly that key phrase: We will
prevail!
George W. Bush is not a philosopher -a man of large thoughts richly understood- nor a
visionary -a man of big dreams artfully rendered. He is, instead, a lay historian, one who
respects traditional understandings of the Ascent of Man and who locates himself on the
timeline of Westward Expansion (Hart & Childers, 2005: p. 13) which did not halt with
the discovery of the East Coast. Rather, the expansionist drift was transformed into an
ideological one rather than a material one. Bush incorporates this into his narrative when
he frames the reason for the attacks.

32

America was targeted for attack because were the brightest beacon for freedom
and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.
(GWB-1/4)

This is another key concept that is repeated throughout all of his speeches. America is a
benevolent benefactor who readily promulgates the core basics of civilization and
humanity.
Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the greatest
achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us. Our
nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our
future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will
not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.
(GWB-3/34)

It is here also that we can see the instrumental function of narrative, which we
introduced in subchapter 1.2.3, at work. Bush uses his story to rally his citizens -and the
rest of the world- against those who dare threaten human freedom.
In a subsequent speech Bush changes the perspective: the enemy did not attack America,
but what America stands for:
Great tragedy has come to us, and we are meeting it with the best that is in our
country, with courage and concern for others. Because this is America. This is who
we are. This is what our enemies hate and have attacked. And this is why we will
prevail.
(GWB-2/9)

Bush also appears to describe the attacks as a divine ordeal, a test of God to His favoured
nation. This is a God who is interested and involved in history and politics, with a
special concern for America (Bellah in Menegatos, 2007: p.12), and He has a mission
for America to uphold democracy and freedom -and everything those two concepts
entail. The attacks gave the citizens of the free world, according to Bush, an opportunity
to fulfil our mission and carry out the job God gave us. (Menegatos, 2007: p. 12). This
seems to correspond with Bushs usage of religious terms, in particular Judeo-Christian

33

terminology, including value-laden terms, religious personalities, and theological

constructs. (Hart & Childers, 2005, p. 13).
One example of these shelter or stock symbols is the commonly used phrase God bless
America, which became a regular in Bushs speeches. It is another example of the
messianic-millenarian theodicy we touched upon in subchapter 2.1 because it involves a
God who is active in our lives and expects us to cooperate with him. (Menegatos, 2007:
p. 6). This theme is repeated routinely: In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom,
and may He watch over the United States. (GWB-3/55). Similarly in the last speech in
our corpus: May God continue to bless America. (GWB-4/17).
The third speech in our corpus provides another clear perspective on the shelter symbols
employed by Bush.
Americans are asking: why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in
this chamber a democratically elected government. Their leaders are selfappointed. They hate our freedoms our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech,
our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
(GWB-3/24)

Through this narrative, whatever voices and opinions and reasons the attackers may
have for their actions are compressed into one simplified picture. Bush introduces the
others voice, but dialogicity is diminished by reducing its motives to a monochrome
opinion: they are against freedom and for oppression, against progress and for
stagnation, degeneration even. What emerges is a cartoonish stereotype of the mad
mullah that could come straight out of Orientalist fantasy, a wild-eyed, turbaned and
bearded fanatic, whose innate irrationality precludes taking him seriously, but makes
him a serious danger. (Lincoln, 2001: p. 1). In the story this main villain is then pitted
against the rest of the free world.

34

What is at stake is not just Americas freedom. This is the worlds fight. This is
civilizations fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism,
tolerance and freedom.
(GWB-3/34)

Although, as the polls showed, many supported him, and his use of these religious
refrains endeared him to a certain class of voters as the commander-in-chief in a war
against terrorism that seamlessly unites Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein (Judis
in Hart & Childers, 2005: p. 13), not everyone adhered to his message: Bushs tendency
to employ history in self-referential ways is mirrored in his unusual -and, to many
Americans, deeply unsettling- willingness to personalize the terrorist attacks and the
wars he has launched in their wake. In doing so, Bush has managed to interpret the
attacks () as the manifestation of historical cycles etched by the hand of God, and as
an opportunity to collapse the registers of public and private suffering into one another.
(Noon in Hart & Childers, 2005: p. 14).
I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield;
I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for
the American people.
(GWB-3/53)

The story Bush tells is not a very sophisticated one, but then he is not a brilliant narrator
nor is his touch a delicate one. Indeed, there is something about Bush that hates
rhetoric-artful tropes and all that- but he is wily enough to know that a good story must
have effective characterization, a clear plot-line and a satisfactory denouement and he
delivered all three consistently during his first term. (Hart & Childers, 2005: p23). The
denouement or final climax in the story that George W. Bush tells is victory.
This is also an important part of the messianic-millenarian theodicy: the promise of a
better, more stable future (Menegatos, 2007, p. 16) through sacrifice. History is seen as
a linear process towards a future that can only be better and brighter and, particularly in
this case, more stable than the past. The future equals progress and success. We did not
ask for this mission, but we will fulfil it, (GWB-4/10) Bush states. And although the
course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. (GWB-3/54). We will not
fail. (GWB-4/17).

35

The consistency with which Bush told his story helped in establishing its dominance
throughout the Western public sphere and blocking Osama bin Ladens attempts at
disrupting it and replacing it with an alternative one. As Wald pointed out, the official
stories of nation builders exist in an uneasy relationship to those individuals and groups
left out of these stories. The stories of those left out or marginalized by the dominant
culture are alternative stories that can challenge, disrupt or severely qualify the
depictions contained in official stories. (Wald, 1995: p. 2).
How successful this alternative narrative is in interrupting and usurping the dominant
story partly depends on factors similar to those for successful communication, as
described in the various communication models. One important reason for the limited
success and little influence of Osama bin Ladens discourse on the dominant Western
one is the fact that his speech was broadcast in Arabic. Since initially only part of his text
was translated into English, a major part of the not Arabic-speaking audience was
exposed only superficially to a narrative concurrent to the official one recounted by the
Bush administration.
Similar to George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden made use of his beliefs and his perception
of history to tell a story. It is one that is strikingly recognizable to his main target
audience because of the Quranic resonances (Lincoln, 2001: p. 2) in his words, but
therefore also excludes most of the Western public sphere that up to now had only
superficially been exposed to this narrative. It was only after the attacks of September
11th that there came an end to this insulation.
Unfortunately that did not mean the narratives of the Arabic public sphere were now
easily understood. When Americans heard Osama bin Laden for the first time, most
found his rhetoric literally incomprehensible -laden with symbolism, history,
assumptions, and references that resonated within Islamic public spheres but were
totally alien to the American public. (Lynch, 2006: p.58). In many ways, however, his
narrative is strikingly similar to that of George W. Bush.
His story is one that spans the history of Western involvement in the Middle-East and
more specifically frames the imperialist oppression of the land of Islam, a conflict that,
in this perspective, is decades or even centuries old. The references and allusions bin
Laden makes in his speeches are meant to show that the latest conflicts the wars in

36

Afghanistan and Iraq- are not isolated events, but the latest episodes in a long chain of
aggressions, which started at the end of World War One and the colonial division of the
Middle-East between European powers. (Bin Laden et al., 2005: p. 133).
Since World War One, which ended over 83 years ago, the entire Islamic world
has fallen under the crusader banners, under the British, French and Italian
governments. They divided up the whole world between them, and Palestine fell
into the hands of the British. From that day to this, more than 83 years later, our
brothers and sons have been tortured in Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of them
have been killed, hundreds of thousands detained.
(OBL-3/6)

Palestine is, however, but one of the many grievances against the umma or Islamic
community, an organic concept that generally refers to the collective nation of the
Arabic states, but in Muslim context usually refers to the community of believers that
consists of 1200 million Muslims. (OBL-2/38). This designation of a community of
believers allows bin Laden to portray any conflict in which Muslims are involved as an
aggression against the nation of Islam, thus creating a sense of religious and geographic
unity, ignoring any sense of individualism and/or dissension that might exist among
Muslims. (Menegatos, 2007: p. 23). As with George W. Bush, this implies a
normalization and acceptance of differences of power which suppresses difference of
meaning and norms. This suppression of dialogicality effectuates a forced consensus.
Osama bin Laden lists various examples of atrocities against Muslims.
When the victim starts to avenge the innocent children in Palestine, Iraq, southern
Sudan, Somalia, Kashmir, and the Philippines, the hypocrites and rulers jurists
stand up and defend this blatant unbelief -I seek Gods help against them all.
(OBL-3/5)

In bin Ladens narrative, all of these conflicts are linked in a causal and linear sequence to
form a consistent narrative of oppression and hostility against an innocent people.

37

These battles cannot be seen in isolation from each other, but must be seen as part
of the great series of fierce and ugly crusader wars against Islam.
(OBL-3/8)

The use of the word crusader (or )and its related terms infidel (or )and
hypocrite ( )is very telling in that aspect since these terms are charged with
historical connotations that tap into well established motifs and languages of the
Arabic public sphere. (Lynch, 2006: p. 58). While the words infidel and hypocrite
institute a religious ground for resistance, since in bin Ladens interpretation the Koran
states that Muslims should fight the disbelievers, crusader is a similar condensation
symbol, be it one that is charged especially with historical significance.
Both words are key terms in the Declaration on Armed Struggle against Jews and Crusaders,
the charter, heavily influenced by the tenets of Sayid Qutb, that established the basic
principles for five militant organizations, among which Al Qaeda. The charter builds on
the preconception that the umma consists of all land entrusted to Muslims until the
Day of Resurrection. (al-Zawahiri et al., 1998: p. 1). This land constitutes all areas that
were liberated by Islam during the Islamic conquests, in addition to the Arabian
Peninsula, the heartland of Islam. Fighting is therefore justified, or even obligatory, in
the light of crusader attempts to take land entrusted to the Muslim community (Kelsay,
2007: p. 135) or even the incursion of non-Muslim forces into Islamic territory.
The original crusades, which were launched in the 11th century against the Seljuk Empire,
are in this light seen as the beginning of Christian aggression against the umma, a theme
that, in their view, is repeated in a chain of events that reaches right up to the most recent
incursions. Armed resistance to the American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and the
Zionist entity of Israel thus becomes a matter of imposed war. (Kelsay, 2007: p. 133).
Bin Laden uses this imagery throughout most of his speeches because it is so effective in
giving a historical spin to recent events.

38

For the truth is that Bush has fought a crusade and raised his banner high, and
stood at the front of the procession.
(OBL-3/5)

The significance of these stock symbols can be evaluated through the frequency with
which bin Laden uses them: in the aptly titled speech Crusader Wars (OBL-3) alone,
we found fourteen instances, and that is without counting the countless references and
paraphrases.
The main objectives behind this narrative strategy appear to be legitimization and
definition. Legitimization of the attacks the vanguard groups of Islam (OBL-1/2) have
wrought on America and its allies, and definition of the tenor behind them. In that
perspective, Osama bin Ladens struggle with George W. Bush is predominantly one
over dominance of narrative, since whoever attains that dominance receives legitimacy
over the application of violence. Legitimacy is largely based on historicity -(collective)
experiences from and representations of the past. Violence perpetrated in the past is kept
alive and relived through cultural symbols like collective stories, public rituals, remnants
or monuments and thus plays an important factor in legitimising future violence.
(Nanninga, 2007: p. 16). Violence thus creates narratives and needs narratives to be
legitimized. The violent acts of September 11th can in that light be seen as a form of
performance violence, the focus being on the message rather than the attacks themselves.
Whatever aim or message the perpetrators of the onslaught may have had in mind, what
is relevant to our analysis is that Osama bin Laden uses the event and frames it in his
narrative. He explains it in the context of jihad or justified struggle against a tyrant
oppressor and speaks of retaliation. (OBL-1/2).

39

With God's will, the Islamic umma has started to strike back with its own sons,
who have given their pledge to God that they will continue the jihad with word and
deed so long as they have eyes to see or blood in their veins in order to establish truth
and eradicate falsehood.
(OBL-4/9)

The time has come to settle accounts. Just as you kill, so you shall be killed; just as
you bomb, so you shall be bombed. And there will be more to come.
(OBL-4/9)

Those who in the Western narrative are known as terrorists are in this version defined
as avengers. (OBL-3/5). They are pictured as the vanguard of Islam (OBL-1/2) (or
) , and bin Laden beseeches God to bless them for their actions: I
pray to God Almighty to lift them up to the highest Paradise (OBL-1/2), a reward fitting
for martyrs who sacrificed themselves for the greater good of the Islamic nation.
This theme of sacrifice is one we also remarked upon in the analysis of George W. Bushs
narrative and, similarly, it is part of a larger comprising messianic-millenarian theodicy
since it not only entails the promise of a better future (), but also the surrender of self
[which lies] at the root of all theodicies -literally giving ones life for Islam. (Menegatos,
2007: p. 23). This promise of a better future is also echoed in the bin Ladens words
when he states that the winds of faith and change have blown to remove falsehood from the
peninsula of Muhammed. (OBL-1/5). Muslims will finally see an end to their suffering
and divine retribution will be wrought upon America with Gods blessing.
I call upon God to help us achieve the victory of His religion and to continue to
jihad for Him until we meet Him and He is content with us. For he is the
guarantor of that and well capable of it. Our final prayer is thanks to God, Lord of
the Worlds.
(OBL-4/12 & 13)

2.4 Appeal to the audience

Since we have already discussed a major part of the logos in the previous chapters, we
will mainly use this subchapter to show the instances of ethos and pathos in both orators

40

addresses. Before we go into either though, we would first like to discuss two factors that
play an important and relevant role in our analysis: all the speeches in our corpus have
two significant characteristics in common: they are indirect and scripted.
The former alludes to the fact that both orators are not actually addressing a real live
audience. In all probability there is a logistics crew that takes care of the sound, the
camera work, make-up, etc., but the actual intended audience or target audience
(Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1971) is not actually present. In that perspective Osama bin Ladens
first speech after the attacks -as well as most subsequent ones- targets an indirect
audience rather than a live one since it was recorded beforehand and broadcast at a
prescribed time. To evoke a sense of interaction he does use a simile of exchange with a
phantom audience: He greets it and thanks it, directly engaging it, he poses rhetorical
questions attributed to his phantom audience, thus allowing himself to pick out those
questions he wants to reply to.
George W. Bushs speeches are equally indirect, yet he has the ability to make up-to-theminute changes since his speeches are broadcast live. This allows him to focus on
present-day exigencies. The fact that he has relatively little trouble in broadcasting his
message since most of the national and international broadcasting services are willing to
accommodate him also gives him more flexibility.
With scripted we mean that in all probability all of the speeches in our corpus are the
work of many people alongside Bush and bin Laden. In the case of George W. Bush this
is perhaps most evident since he officially employs a team of speech writers who help
him put together the words that are meant to represent not only him personally, but
-through his role as the elected leader of the United States- the citizens of America as
well.
Osama bin Ladens words are similarly an amalgam of different texts and influences,
although in his case we cannot say with certainty that anyone other than himself worked
on the addresses. Be that as it may, it is safe to say that his speeches are careful examples
of intertextuality, since in his discourse he moves easily in the Quran as a book of dayto-day guidance (Bin Laden et al., 2005: xvi) whilst alternating between classical Arabic
poetry, religious sources and political works.

41

It is precisely there that bin Laden acquires a lot of ethos points since although he is not
an original thinker () nor an outstanding Quranic scholar (Bin Laden et al., 2005:
xvi), his literary gifts make him a distinguished polemicist. Throughout his addresses he
weaves fluently back and forth between at least five types of Muslim public discourse:
the declaration, the juridical decree, the lecture, the written reminder, and the epistle,
[which, through] his capacity for rhetorical manoeuvre, enables him to legitimate
himself in relation to different traditions of religious authority. (Miller in Bin Laden et
al., 2005: xvi).
This auto-legitimation in turn adds to his ethos because it is accepted by his followers,
who hence designate him a sheikh (), a term that, besides a more worldly
denotation as tribe leader, in an Islamic context is used to identify professors of spiritual
institutions of higher learning (Wehr, 1980) or leaders of religious movements, even
though he never received a formal instruction. Bin Laden further enforces this image of a
pious and scholarly Muslim leader by starting and finishing his addresses with formulaic
sentences in which he supplicates Gods blessing.
Praise be to God. We beseech him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in God
from the evil in our souls and our ad deeds. He whom God guides will not go astray,
and he whom He leads astray can have no guide. I testify that there is no god but
God alone, who has no equal.
(OBL-3/1)

Furthermore, the fact that he is, as Miller states, a stickler for Arabic grammar and
rhetorical flourishes (Tapes Offer a Look Beneath the Surface of bin Laden and Al
Qaeda, 2008) also serves to add to his renown since the Arabic language in Islamic
public spheres still possesses an additional merit of religiosity, especially one that is
redolent with Quranic resonances. On the other hand, this does mean that
dissemination of his messages was at first mostly limited to Arabic speakers, especially
since many broadcast companies complied with requests by the American government
not to broadcast bin Ladens messages and limit themselves to excerpts only.
Bush on the other hand, had less trouble getting his message out to the world. As we
mentioned before, broadcast services offered him a platform that had global reach,
which was even extended because of the language in which the addresses were delivered.

42

Since English still is a world language that is widely understood, the penetration rate of
his message throughout the world village was very high. Coupled with the frequency
with which he was able to put out his message, this gave him an undeniable dominance
over the narrative and a group of key terms that was repeated so often in his and in
common parlance that its meaning has come to seem transparent and its appropriateness
self-evident. (Lincoln, 2001: p. 1).
Through his story, which he told constantly, adjusting it to local circumstances but
never abandoning its powerful rhythms and counterpoints (Hart & Childers, 2005: p.
20) he was able to define those key terms in favourable terms, which added to his ethos.
As with bin Laden, Bush may not be a scholar adept at rhetorical knacks, but he still
possesses a distinct linguistic strength. Since Bush essentially speaks as a representative
and leader of the United States at the same time, he not only attempts to improve his
own ethos but that of his country as well.
Here it becomes relevant to differentiate between ethos that has already been acquired
and ethos that a speaker is trying to obtain, since Bush appears to connect these to in
order to establish the assumption that America actually possesses both characteristics.
To many in the world, America is still seen as the land of opportunity, a proposition that
is explicitly voiced by Bush when he calls his country the brightest beacon for freedom and
opportunity in the world. (GWB-1/4).12 The ethos of being a peaceful nation (GWB4/9) on the other hand, is one that is arguably disputed, especially by many outside of
the United States. This is a form of ethos that Bush is trying to acquire, since it
complements his narrative of an innocent nation that suffered under unprovoked attacks.
Bush similarly personalizes the terrorist attacks and the wars he has launched in their
wake, thus collapsing the registers of public and private suffering into one another.
(Noon, 2004: p. 357). This move is part of the rhetorical strategy of pathos, which is also
recurrent in our corpus. Since the United States fell victim to ruthless terrorist attacks
that were perpetrated without any provocation, it has a duty to strike back before
terrorism has a chance to spread and more havoc is wrought. Through this narrative

12

Various examples of this strategy -the attribution of positive traits to oneself in order to strengthen
dichotomy- were explained more thoroughly in subchapter 2.1.

43

George W. Bush is able to arouse several feelings in his audience, the dominant one of
which may at first be indignation.
The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures
collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding
anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos
and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.
(GWB-1/2)

The indignation is then transformed into a feeling of righteousness and high-minded

moral.
This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for
justice and peace.
(GWB-1/12)

This exact same rhetorical strategy is also present in Osama bin Ladens speeches. As we
demonstrated in our subchapter on narrative, bin Laden frames the attacks as a divine
retribution for all the injustices the United States, that head of unbelief, have wrought
on the Islamic umma. The attacks were nothing less than the wrath of God.

44

3 Conclusion
When we had a first look at Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush, the relationship that
exists between the two appeared to be the embodiment of Samuel Huntingtons clash of
civilizations. Notwithstanding their ambiguous personalities, their ideas, ideologies and
personalities gave them the appearance of being each others quintessential antithesis, an
impression neither has been very vocal in denying. Quite the contrary even: both orators
have been very vociferous in denouncing everything the other stands for, and the
international media has been rather keen in picking up on this antagonism.
At first this enmity appeared rather self-evident: George W. Bush portrayed himself as
the great liberator who would lead his country out from under the dread the attacks of
September 11 had wrought on his people and his nation. The terrorist strikes were a sign,
a test from God the American people had to overcome. Simultaneously bin Laden
constructed a contrasting version of reality in which it was the Muslim nation of
believers that was under attack. They where Gods chosen, who had long endured the
Western oppression, which had started off with the crusades and lead in a straight line to
the current situation. Finally a vanguard of Islam had risen against the hypocritical
despot and struck critical targets in America, filling the country with terror.
In order to construct these symbolical universes in which they themselves held the
higher moral ground, they employed various strategies, of which we analysed several: we
discussed the creation of a dichotomy, and demonstrated how they kept repeating the
same narratives to define the conflict and compress an intricate network of complexities
into a simple story, the enemy being construed as an anomy and a threat to the
prevailing organization that brought order and safety. To convince their respective
communities that they would not be abandoned in that abyss of anomy and chaos
(Menegatos, 2007: p. 26) both orators relied on the messianic-millenarian theodicy to
assure their followers that God would protect them and that in the end they would surely
prevail over the enemy.
The image with which that enemy was constructed turned out more complex than first
anticipated. Our analysis demonstrated that both speakers construe an ambiguous
representation of their antagonist: on the one hand that enemy has to be strong in order

45

to justify the resolve and the tenacity with which he must be dealt with, but there have to
be evident weaknesses and deficiencies for the orators to indicate to show that, no
matter how formidable the foe is, he is not untouchable. America, for example, may be a
towering superpower with a high-tech army at its disposal, nineteen students were able
to bring it to its knees. Likewise, Al Qaeda and bin Laden may be an invisible enemy that
can strike anywhere and anytime, but at the same time they are only a minority that
perverts the peaceful teachings of a religion and is not even supported by their own
people.
Most important and hence not surprisingly the longest chapter- in our analysis was the
way they constructed their narrative. As we already mentioned briefly at the beginning of
this conclusion, the strength of their narrative -and their rhetorical skills- hinged for an
important part on a simple and linear story that they repeated constantly. As Hart &
Childers demonstrated in their own research, Bushs storytelling was deployed most
often when he addressed national defence (Hart & Childers, 2005: p. 21) and changed
entirely after the events of 9/11. It gave him a story to tell, which he gratefully used as
often as possible. Likewise, bin Laden used narrative to unite his target audience behind
a story of oppression and divine retribution.
We lastly demonstrated how the classical triadic pattern defined their rhetoric. Both
tried to embolden their ethos and arouse pathos in their audiences. Osama bin Laden
appears to have been successful since in many reports and articles throughout the Arabic
world for example, the honorific sheikh has become inextricably linked with his name.
Likewise, George W. Bush was able to secure a second presidential term based on a
discourse that largely consisted of fear of terrorism and his ability to protect his citizens
from it.
At the beginning of our research we had already implied that we expected many
similarities in the strategies bin Laden and Bush, but it was not until our analysis that it
struck us just how much they have in common. The speeches of Bush and Bin Laden
mirrored one another, offering narratives in which the speakers, as defenders of
righteousness, rallied an aggrieved people to strike back at aggressors who had done
them terrible wrongs. (Lincoln, 2006). The same patterns and designs materialized, and
two comparable rationales ran alongside each other. That is perhaps the reason why
their narratives clashed as hard as they did and why they so fervently tried to nihilate the

46

opposition: because of the confrontation and the exposure afterwards they were unable
to maintain their monopoly on a society-wide basis causing the walls of their own
symbolic universes to crumble. (Berger & Luckmann in Menegatos, 2007: p. 27).
With the attacks of September 11th suddenly the up to then ignored Arabic public sphere
was thrust into the glaring light of publicity. (Lynch, 2006: p.58). Statements and
political rhetoric that made perfect sense in one public sphere did not measure up that
well in the other, and references that resonated with symbolism, history and assumptions
were met with incomprehension and ignorance, producing breathless reports on antiAmericanism, seemingly irrational conspiracy theories and cultural hostility. (Lynch,
2006: p. 58).
The American narrative on the other hand offered a perspective that was equally
disjointed to the Arabic public sphere. That is perhaps the reason why these selfproclaimed leaders insisted so on repeating their stories over and over: it offered their
supporters a simple reason for these conflicting perspectives on world history and
provided them with an easy way out by dismissing the competing narrative as irrelevant
or even inappropriate, thus circumventing the need and the desire to investigate the
motives behind that particular narrative. Why do they think that way? Instead, they are
offered stability and certainty in a familiar territory: a simplified, polarized world in
which they are the good guys who have God on their side.
As Wald pointed out, the official stories of nation builders exist in an uneasy
relationship to those individuals and groups left out of these stories. The stories of those
left out or marginalized by the dominant culture are alternative stories that can challenge,
disrupt or severely qualify the depictions contained in official stories. (Wald, 1995: p. 2).
It could be interesting to investigate the success with which each narrative challenged
the other. Is there a noticeable change after their reciprocal exposure? In what way?
How effective are their discourses, and how complete is their dominance over their own
society? In what way does the audience they actually reach conform with the one they
intended to reach? The initial supremacy of George W. Bushs narrative in America
appears to have abated: since the credit crunch, the banking crisis and health care reform
new narratives have risen, but it would be interesting to study how these new ones
compare to the previous one.

47

Our own research also left a lot of questions unanswered. We for example only briefly
demonstrated the importance of pronouns in the addresses. An in-depth study might
provide us with more examples and a better insight into how exactly Bushs and bin
Ladens discursive strategies function. What are the exact sources for bin Ladens
references, and what resonance do they have with an Islamic audience? Are his sources
mainstream or obscure? At which exact part of the Arabic public sphere are they aimed
and how successful is he in doing so? Further study into these aspects may yield
interesting results that could offer us more insight.

48

4 Bibliography
al-Zawahiri, A., Bin-Laden, O.B.M., Taha, R.A., Hamzah, M., Rahman, F., World Islamic Front for Jihad
Against Jews and Crusaders: initial 'Fatwa' Statement, al-Quds al-Arabi, 1998-02-23
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/fatw2.htm, Retrieved 2009-03-10 (English translation at
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm).
Armstrong, K. (2000). Islam: a short history. New York: Random House.
Arquila, J. & Ronfeldt, D (Ed.). (2001). Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and
Militancy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Report Eds.
Barber, B. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Beard, A. (2000). The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
Benedetto, R. and ODriscoll, P. (2001). Poll Finds a United Nation. Retrieved September 23, 2008
from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/poll.htm.
Bergen, P. (2002). Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicholson.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Berger, P.L. (1980). The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Anchor
Books.
Bin-Laden, O.B.M., Lawrence, B. (ed.) & Howarth, C. (2005). Messages to the World: The Statements of
Osama bin Laden. New York: Verso.
Blanchard, C., (2005), Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology. In J.B. Lawrence (Ed.), Al Qaeda,
an Organization to be Reckoned With. (pp. 11-28). New York: Novinka Books.
Booth, W.C. (1983). The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bostdorff, D. M. (2003). George W. Bushs post-September 11 rhetoric of covenant renewal: Upholding the
faith of the greatest generation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89, 293-319.
Braas, C., van der Geest, E. and de Schepper, A. (2006). Argumenteren. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff.
Bush, George W. & National Review Books. (2003). We will prevail: President George W. Bush on war,
terrorism and freedom/selected and edited by National Review; foreword by Peggy Noonan; introduction
by Jay Nordlinger. New York: Continuum,
Calmes, J. (2010, June 15). History Behind Choice of Venue for Speech. The New York Times, p. A18.
Chatman, S. (1990). Coming to terms: The Rhetoric of narrative in fiction and film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
CNNs Henry: Bush speech quoting bin Laden may help shake Americans out of any complacency they may
feel. September 5, 2006. Retrieved from http://mediamatters.org/research/200609050008 on 2/4/2010.
Cronick, K. (2002). The Discourse of President George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden: A Rhetorical
Analysis and Hermeneutic Interpretation, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 3(3). Available at:
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [Date of access: 06/22/2010].
Digital New Oxford American Dictionary. Version 2.1.3 (80.4). Apple Inc.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

49

Eickelman D.F. & Piscatori, J. (2004). Muslim politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Friedman, T.L. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Anchor
Books.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1992.
Goodman, A. (2004, November 1). Robert Fisk: Bin Ladens Voice is for George Bush. Democracy Now.
Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/1/robert_fisk_bin_ladens_vote_is on
25/09/2009.
Graber, D. (1976). Verbal behavior and politics. Chicago: University of Illinois press.
Graber D. (1985). Magical Words and Plain Campaigns. Society [serial on the Internet], (1985, May),
[cited July 3, 2010]; 22(4): 38-44. Available from: Academic Search Premier.
Greenstein, F.I. (2000). The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Clinton. New York:
Simon & Schuster Inc.
Hart, R. P. & Childers, J.P. (2005-09-01). "George W. Bush and the Language of Command: A Daily
Diary", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott
Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC Online <PDF>. 2009-05-25 from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41598_index.htmlAssociation, Washington, D.C., September
1/4/2005.
Holquist, M. (1981). Introduction. In Bachtin, M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Huntington, S. (1998). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. London: Simon &
Schuster.
Jasinsky,J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage Publications,.
Johnson, L.K. (2007). Strategic Intelligence, Volume 1. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Juergensmeyer, M. (2003). Terror in the mind of God. The global rise of religious violence. London:
University of California Press.
Kelsay, J. (2007). Arguing the Just War in Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kertzer, D.I. (1988). Ritual, politics, and power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Leezenberg, M. (2002). Islamitische Filosofie: een Geschiedenis. Amsterdam: Bulaaq.
Lewis, B. (1998, November/December). License to Kill: Usama bin Ladin's Declaration of Jihad. Foreign
Affairs, 14-19.
Lincoln, B. (2006). Symmetric dualisms, Bush and bin Laden in Holy Terrors Thinking about Religion
After September 11. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press
Lynch, M. (2006). Voices of the New Arabic Public. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
MacFarquhar, N. (2008, September 11). Tapes Offer a Look Beneath the Surface of bin Laden and Al
Qaeda. The New York Times, p. A14.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: a study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press.
Martin, W. (1986). Recent theories of narrative. Ithaca, NY: University of Notre Dame Press.
Menegatos, L. , 2007-11-15. "Using Religious Discourse to Construct Reality: How George W. Bush
and Osama bin Laden United and Divided Nations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 93rd

50

Annual Convention, TBA, Chicago, IL Online <PDF>. 2010-06-07 from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p193434_index.html Mishal, S., Rosenthal, M., Al Qaeda as a Dune
Organization: Toward a Typology of Islamic Terrorist Organizations, in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism,
28:275-293, 2005.
Nacos, B.L. (2002). Mass-Mediated Terrorism: the central role of the media in terrorism and
counterterrorism. New-York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Naninga, P. (2007). Geweld als Theater: Palestijnse zelfmoordaanslagen en profilering van Hamas en Fatah.
Groningen: Universiteit Groningen.
Peters, R. (1996). Jihad in classical and modern Islam. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers.
Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Said, E.W. (1997). Covering Islam. London: Vintage.
Said, E.W. (2003). Orientalism. London: Penguin Books,
Tuman, J.S. (2003). Communicating Terror The rhetorical dimensions of terrorism. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Twair, P.M. (2002). Edward Said Addresses 9/11 Issues at Chapman University, Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs, May 2002, 51-113. Retrieved February 6, 2010, from
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/may2002/0205051.html
Wald, P. (1995). Constituting Americans: Cultural anxiety and narrative form. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Wehr, H. (1980). A dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Woodward, B. (2002). Bush at War. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Zarefsky, D. (2004). George W. Bush Discovers Rhetoric: September 20, 2001, and the U.S. Response
to Terrorism. In Hyde, J.H. & Schrag C.O. (Ed.). The Ethos of Rhetoric (p. 136-155). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press.
Zemni, S. (2006). Politieke islam, 9/11 en jihad. Leuven: Acco.

51

5 Appendix
5.1 George W. Bush
5.1.1 11/09/2001 - Address to the Nation
Good evening.
Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series
of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes or in their offices:
secretaries, business men and women, military and federal workers, moms and dads,
friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts
of terror. The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge -- huge
structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding
anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and
retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong.
A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the
foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.
These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was
targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in
the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. Today, our nation saw evil -- the
very worst of human nature -- and we responded with the best of America. With the
daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to
give blood and help in any way they could.
Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency
response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our emergency teams are
working in New York City and Washington D.C. to help with local rescue efforts. Our
first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every precaution
to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks. The functions
of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington
which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight and will

52

be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the
American economy will be open for business as well.
The search is underway for those who were behind these evil acts. I have directed the full
resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible
and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who
committed these acts and those who harbor them.
I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly
condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many
world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance. America and our
friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we
stand together to win the war against terrorism.
Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds
have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I
pray they will be comforted by a Power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages
in Psalm 23:
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are
with me.
This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice
and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of
us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and
just in our world.
Thank you. Good night. And God bless America.

5.1.2 15/09/2001 - Radio Address to the Nation

Good morning.

53

This weekend I am engaged in extensive sessions with members of my National Security

Council, as we plan a comprehensive assault on terrorism. This will be a different kind of
conflict against a different kind of enemy.
This is a conflict without battlefields or beachheads, a conflict with opponents who
believe they are invisible. Yet, they are mistaken. They will be exposed, and they will
discover what others in the past have learned: Those who make war against the United
States have chosen their own destruction.
Victory against terrorism will not take place in a single battle but in a series of decisive
actions against terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them. We are
planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our country and eradicate the evil of
terrorism. And we are determined to see this conflict through. Americans of every faith
and background are committed to this goal.
Yesterday I visited the site of the destruction in New York City and saw an amazing spirit
of sacrifice and patriotism and defiance. I met with rescuers who have worked past
exhaustion, who cheered for our country and the great cause we have entered. In
Washington, DC, the political parties and both Houses of Congress have shown a
remarkable unity, and I'm deeply grateful. A terrorist attack designed to tear us apart has
instead bound us together as a nation.
Over the past few days, we have learned much about American courage, the courage of
firefighters and police officers who suffered so great a loss, the courage of passengers
aboard United 93 who may well have fought with the hijackers and saved many lives on
the ground.
Now we honor those who died and prepare to respond to these attacks on our Nation. I
will not settle for a token act. Our response must be sweeping, sustained, and effective.
We have much to do and much to ask of the American people. You will be asked for your
patience, for the conflict will not be short. You will be asked for resolve, for the conflict
will not be easy. You will be asked for your strength, because the course to victory may
be long.

54

In the past week, we have seen the American people at their very best everywhere in
America. Citizens have come together to pray, to give blood, to fly our country's flag.
Americans are coming together to share their grief and gain strength from one another.
Great tragedy has come to us, and we are meeting it with the best that is in our country,
with courage and concern for others, because this is America. This is who we are. This is
what our enemies hate and have attacked. And this is why we will prevail.
Thank you for listening.

5.1.3 20/09/2001 Address to a Joint Session of Congress

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, Members of Congress, and fellow Americans:
In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this Chamber to report on the state
of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the
American people.
We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the
ground, passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please
help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight.
We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past
exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of
blood, the saying of prayers in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency
of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own.
My fellow citizens, for the last 9 days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our
Union, and it is strong.
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief
has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or
bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

55

I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was
touched, on the evening of the tragedy, to see Republicans and Democrats joined
together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless America." And you did more
than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the
needs of our military.
Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle, and Senator Lott,
I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership, and for your service to our country.
And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support.
America will never forget the sounds of our national anthem playing at Buckingham
Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate. We will not forget
South Korean children gathering to pray outside our Embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of
sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days
of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.
Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of
Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women
from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico, and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has
no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause
so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity with
America. Thank you for coming, friend.
On September 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.
Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign
soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not
at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise
attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a
single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under
attack.
Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, who attacked our
country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated
terrorist organizations known as Al Qaida. They are some of the murderers indicted for
bombing American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the

56

U.S.S. Cole. Al Qaida is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making
money. Its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people
everywhere.
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by
Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts
the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill
Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinctions among military and
civilians, including women and children.
This group and its leader, a person named Usama bin Laden, are linked to many other
organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60
countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to
camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are
sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and
destruction.
The leadership of Al Qaida has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban
regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see Al Qaida's vision for
the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized. Many are starving, and many have
fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television.
Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan
if his beard is not long enough.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistanafter all, we are currently its
largest source of humanitarian aidbut we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only
repressing its own people; it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and
sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is
committing murder.
And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:
Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaida who hide in your land.
Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned.
Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close

57

immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand
over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities.
Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they
are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act
immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your
faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in
countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those
who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are
traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is
not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical
network of terrorists and every government that supports them.
Our war on terror begins with Al Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until
every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this
Chamber, a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They
hate our freedomsour freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to
vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to
drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives but to disrupt and end a way of life. With
every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and
forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.
We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They
are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human
life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power,

58

they follow in the path of fascism and nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow
that path all the way, to where it ends, in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.
Americans are asking, how will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource
at our commandevery means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every
instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of
warto the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of
territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo 2 years ago,
where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans
should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.
It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in
success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them
from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that
provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision
to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any
nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United
States as a hostile regime.
Our Nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take
defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today dozens of Federal
departments and agencies, as well as State and local governments, have responsibilities
affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level.
So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me,
the Office of Homeland Security. And tonight I also announce a distinguished American
to lead this effort to strengthen American security, a military veteran, an effective
Governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend, Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. He will lead,
oversee, and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country
against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come.

59

These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way
of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in
this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to
active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles
from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the
Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act,
and you will make us proud.
This is not, however, just America's fight, and what is at stake is not just America's
freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who
believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces,
intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is
grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded
with sympathy and with support, nations from Latin America to Asia, to Africa, to
Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the
world: An attack on one is an attack on all.
The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes
unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can
not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.
And you know what? We're not going to allow it.
Americans are asking, what is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives and hug your
children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute,
even in the face of a continuing threat.
I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.
We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one
should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic
background or religious faith.

60

I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions.
Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to
find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your
cooperation, and I ask you to give it.
I ask for your patience with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter
security and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.
I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists
attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is
successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These
were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our
strengths today.
And finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those
in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow and will help
strengthen us for the journey ahead.
Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you
will do. And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for
what you have already done and for what we will do together.
Tonight we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve
air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights and take
new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep
our airlines flying, with direct assistance during this emergency.
We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track
down terror here at home. We will come together to strengthen our intelligence
capabilities, to know the plans of terrorists before they act and find them before they
strike. We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy
and put our people back to work.

61

Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New
Yorkers, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. As a symbol of
America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress and these two leaders to
show the world that we will rebuild New York City.
After all that has just passed, all the lives taken and all the possibilities and hopes that
died with them, it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an
age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. But this country will
define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is
determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here
and across the world.
Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger,
we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance
of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time,
now depends on us. Our Nationthis generationwill lift a dark threat of violence
from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by
our courage. We will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail.
It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll
go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and
grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day
and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came, where we were,
and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire or a story of rescue.
Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.
And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at
the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as
a proud memorial to her son. It is my reminder of lives that ended and a task that does
not end. I will not forget this wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not
yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for
the American people.

62

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear,
justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral
between them.
Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our
cause and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us
wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.
Thank you.

5.1.4 07/10/2001 - Address to the Nation

Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al
Qaida terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of
Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the
Taliban regime.
We are joined in this operation by our staunch friend Great Britain. Other close friends,
including Canada, Australia, Germany, and France, have pledged forces as the operation
unfolds. More than 40 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and across Asia have
granted air transit or landing rights. Many more have shared intelligence. We are
supported by the collective will of the world.
More than 2 weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands:
Close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of the Al Qaida network; and return all
foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None
of these demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay a price. By destroying camps
and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to
train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.
Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places.
Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive, and
relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice.

63

At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of
America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we'll also drop food, medicine, and
supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.
The United States of America is a friend to the Afghan people, and we are the friends of
almost a billion worldwide who practice the Islamic faith. The United States of America
is an enemy of those who aid terrorists and of the barbaric criminals who profane a great
religion by committing murder in its name.
This military action is a part of our campaign against terrorism, another front in a war
that has already been joined through diplomacy, intelligence, the freezing of financial
assets, and the arrests of known terrorists by law enforcement agents in 38 countries.
Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient
accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will
and purpose.
Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to
make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the
outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers, themselves.
And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.
I'm speaking to you today from the Treaty Room of the White House, a place where
American Presidents have worked for peace. We're a peaceful nation. Yet, as we have
learned so suddenly and so tragically, there can be no peace in a world of sudden terror.
In the face of today's new threat, the only way to pursue peace is to pursue those who
threaten it.
We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. The name of today's military
operation is Enduring Freedom. We defend not only our precious freedoms but also the
freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.
I know many Americans feel fear today, and our Government is taking strong
precautions. All law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working aggressively
around America, around the world, and around the clock. At my request, many
Governors have activated the National Guard to strengthen airport security. We have

64

called up Reserves to reinforce our military capability and strengthen the protection of
our homeland.
In the months ahead, our patience will be one of our strengths: patience with the long
waits that will result from tighter security; patience and understanding that it will take
time to achieve our goals; patience in all the sacrifices that may come.
Today those sacrifices are being made by members of our Armed Forces who now
defend us so far from home, and by their proud and worried families. A Commander in
Chief sends America's sons and daughters into a battle in a foreign land only after the
greatest care and a lot of prayer. We ask a lot of those who wear our uniform. We ask
them to leave their loved ones, to travel great distances, to risk injury, even to be
prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives. They are dedicated; they are
honorable; they represent the best of our country. And we are grateful.
To all the men and women in our militaryevery sailor, every soldier, every airman,
every coastguardsman, every marine I say this: Your mission is defined; your
objectives are clear; your goal is just; you have my full confidence; and you will have
every tool you need to carry out your duty.
I recently received a touching letter that says a lot about the state of America in these
difficult times, a letter from a fourthgrade girl with a father in the military: "As much as I
don't want my dad to fight," she wrote, "I'm willing to give him to you."
This is a precious gift, the greatest she could give. This young girl knows what America is
all about. Since September 11, an entire generation of young Americans has gained new
understanding of the value of freedom and its cost in duty and in sacrifice.
The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not
falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.
Thank you. May God continue to bless America.

65

5.2 Osama bin Laden

5.2.1 7/10/2001 The Winds of Faith
Praise be to God. We beseech Him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in God from
the evil of our souls and our bad deeds. He whom God guides will not go astray, and he
whom He leads astray can have no guide. I testify that there is no god but God alone,
Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His slave and messenger.
God has struck America at its Achilles heel and destroyed its greatest buildings, praise
and blessings to Him. America has been filled with terror from north to south and from
east to west, praise and blessings to God. What America is tasting today is but a fraction
of what we have tasted for decades. For over eighty years our umma has endured this
humiliation and contempt. Its sons have been killed, its blood has been shed, its holy
sanctuaries have been violated, all in a manner contrary to that revealed by God, without
anyone listening or responding. So when God Almighty granted success to one of the
vanguard groups of Islam, He opened the way for them to destroy America utterly. I pray
to God Almighty to lift them up to the highest Paradise. When these men retaliated on
behalf of their poor, oppressed sons, their brothers and sisters in Palestine and in many
of the other lands of Islam, the whole world cried out. The infidels cried out [in protest
at 9/11] and the hypocrites followed them.
Until this point, a million innocent children have been killed in Iraq, although they had
done nothing wrong. But we do not hear anyone condemning this, nor do we hear any
juridical decree from the official scholars. As I speak, Israeli tanks and bulldozers are
going in and wreaking havoc and sin in Palestine in Jenin, in Ramallah, in Rafa, in Beit
Jala- and other parts of the domain of Islam, and we do not hear anyone protesting or
even lifting a finger to stop it. But when after eighty years the sword comes down on
America, the hypocrites rise up to lament these killers who have scorned the blood,
honor, and holy places of Muslims.
The very least you can say about these people is that they are immoral, dissolute,
apostates, who help the butcher slaughter his victim and help the oppressor against the
innocent child. May God Almighty protect me against them, and may He give them
what they deserve.

66

I tell you, the matter is very clear. After this event, now that senior officials in the United
States of America starting with the had of global unbelief, Bush, and those with himhave spoken, every Muslim should rise up and defend his religion. They [the Americans]
have come with their men and horses, conspiring against us until even the countries that
belong to Islam joined their side against this group [the 9/11 attackers] who came with
their religion to God Almighty, refusing to abandon their religion. They came to fight
Islam and its people on the pretext of fighting terrorism. Hundreds of thousands, young
and old, were killed in Japan, the most distant land but this is not a war crime, just an
issue to be looked into. And today, in Iraq, the same applies. But when a few of them
were killed in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam, they bombed Afghanistan and Iraq and the
hypocrites all stood behind the head of global unbelief, behind the Hubal of the modern
age, America and its supporters. I tell you that these events have split the entire world
into two camps: one of faith, with no hypocrites, and noe of unbelief may God protect
us from it. Every Muslim must give what he can to help his religion. The winds of faith
and change have blown to remove falsehood from the peninsula of Muhammed.
I have only a few words for America and its people: I swear by God Almighty Who raised
the heavens without effort that neither America nor anyone who lives there will enjoy
safety until safety becomes a reality for us living in Palestine and before all the infidel
armies leave the land of Muhammed. God is greatest and glory to Islam/
Peace be upon you and all Gods mercy and blessings.

5.2.2 26/12/2001 - Nineteen Students

Praise be to God. We beseech Him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in God from
the evil of our souls and our bad deeds. He whom God guides will not go astray, and he
whom He leads astray can have no guide. I testify that there is no god but God alone,
Who has no partners, and I testify that Muhammad is His servant and messenger.
Three months after the blessed strikes against global unbelief and its leader America, and
approximately two months after the beginning of this vicious Crusader campaign against
Islam, we should discuss the meaning of these events, which have revealed things of the
greatest importance to Muslims. It has become all too clear that the West in general, with
America at its head, carries an unspeakable Crusader hatred for Islam. Those who have

67

endured the continuous bombing from American aeroplanes these last months know this
only too well.
How many innocent villages have been destroyed, how many millions forced out into the
freezing cold, these poor innocent men, women, and children who are now taking shelter
in refugee camps in Pakistan while America launches a vicious campaign based on mere
suspicion?
If America had evidence that could prove with a degree of certainty who did this deed
[9/11], then it would attribute it to Europe, to the IRA, for example. There were many
ways in which it could have dealt with the problem, but even though it was merely a matter
of suspicion, the real, ugly face of Crusader hatred for the Islamic world immediately
manifested itself in all its clarity.
At this point I would like to emphasize the fact that the struggle between us and America
is of the utmost gravity and importance, not only to Muslims but to the entire world. On
what basis does America accuse this group of emigrants who wage jihad for God's sake,
against whom there is no evidence other than that of injustice, oppression, and hostility?
The history of the Arab mujahidin who waged jihad for the grace of God Almighty is as
clear as can be. In the face of the Soviet Unions despicable terrorism against children and
innocents in Afghanistan twenty years ago, these Arab mujahidin rose up and left their jobs,
universities, families, and tribes to earn the pleasure of God, to help God's religion and to
help these poor Muslims.
It is inconceivable that those who came to help the poor people today came to kill
innocents, as is being alleged. History recounts that America supported everyone who
waged jihad and fought against Russia but when God blessed these Arab mujahidin with
going to help those poor innocent women and children in Palestine, America became
angry and turned its back, betraying all those who had fought in Afghanistan.
What is happening in Palestine today is extremely clear, and something about which all
of humanity since Adam can agree. Some may get corrupted, and people differ on many
issues, but there are some whom God Almighty keeps from corruption, in contrast to
those whose souls have become deviant and have reached an excessive degree of

68

oppression and hostility. But one issue on which people are agreed, even if they themselves
have been the victims of oppression and hostility, is that you cannot kill innocent children.
The deliberate killing of innocent children in Palestine today is the ugliest, most
oppressive, and hostile act, and something that threatens all of humanity. History knows
that one who kills children, even if rarely, is a follower of Pharaoh. God Almighty
favoured the sons of Israel when He helped them escape from Pharaoh. "Remember
when We saved you from Pharaoh's people, who subjected you to terrible torment,
slaughtering your sons and sparing only your women." Slaughtering children was
something for which the head of oppression, unbelief, and hostility, Pharaoh, was famous,
yet the sons of Israel have done the same thing to our sons in Palestine. The whole world
has witnessed Israeli soldiers killing Muhammad al-Durreh and many others like him.
People across the entire world, both in East and West, are contravening their faiths by
denying these deeds, but America goes on supporting those oppressors and enemies of
our sons in Palestine. God Almighty has decreed that if someone reaches such an
excessive degree of hostility that he kills another unlawfully, this is the most abhorrent
deed, but it is yet more abhorrent to kill innocent children. God Almighty says: "On
account of [his deed], We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land- it is as if he kills all
mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind."
So in fact it is as if Israel -and those backing it in America- have killed all the children in
the world. What will stop Israel killing our sons tomorrow in Tabuk, al-Jauf and other
areas? What would the rulers do if Israel broadened its territory according to what they
allege is written in their false, oppressive, unjust books, which said that "Our borders
extend as far as Medina"? What will rulers do except submit to this American Zionist
lobby?
Rational people must wake up, or what befell Muhammad al-Durreh and his brothers
will happen tomorrow to their sons and women. There is no strength or power save in
God.
The matter is extremely serious. This disgraceful terrorism is practised by America in its
most abhorrent form in Palestine and in Iraq. This terrible man, Bush Sr, was the reason

69

for the murder of over a million children in Iraq, besides all the other men and women
[who have been killed].
The events of 22nd jumada al-Thani, or Aylul [September 11] are merely a response to
the continuous injustice inflicted upon our sons in Palestine, Iraq,
Somalia, southern Sudan, and other places, like Kashmir. The matter concerns the entire
umma. People need to wake up from their sleep and try to find a solution to this
catastrophe that is threatening all of humanity.
Those who condemn these operations [9/11] have viewed the event in isolation and
have failed to connect it to previous events or to the reasons behind it. Their view is
blinkered and lacks either a legitimate or a rational basis. They merely saw others in
America and the media decrying these operations, so they did the same themselves.
These people remind me of the wolf who, seeing a lamb, said to it: "You were the one
who polluted my water last year." The lamb replied: "It wasn't me," but the wolf insisted:
"Yes it was." The lamb said: "I was only born this year." The wolf replied: "Then it was
your mother who polluted my water", and he ate the lamb. When the poor ewe saw her
son being torn by the wolf's teeth, her maternal feelings drove her to give the wolf a hard
butt. The wolf cried out: "Look at this terrorism!" And all the parrots repeated what he
said, saying "Yes, we condemn the ewe's butting of the wolf." What do you think about
the wolf eating the ewe's lamb?
These blessed, successful strikes are merely a reaction to events in our land in Palestine,
in Iraq, and in other places. America has continued this policy with the coming of
George Bush Jr, who began his term with violent airstrikes on Iraq to emphasize the
policy of oppression and hostility, and to show that the blood of Muslims has no value.
This blessed reaction came by the grace of God Almighty, showing very clearly that this
haughty, domineering power, America, the Hubal of the age, is based on great economic
power, but it is soft. How quickly it fell from the sky, by the grace of God Almighty.
It was not nineteen Arab states that did this deed [9/11]. It was not Arab armies or
ministries who humbled the oppressor who harms us in Palestine and elsewhere. It was

70

nineteen post-secondary students -I beg God Almighty to accept them- who shook
America's throne, struck its economy right in the heart, and dealt the biggest military power
a mighty blow, by the grace of God Almighty.
Here we have clear proof that this destructive, usurious global economy that America
uses, together with its military force, to impose unbelief and humiliation on poor peoples,
can easily collapse. Those blessed strikes in New York and the other places forced it to
acknowledge the loss of more than a trillion dollars, by the grace of God Almighty. And
they used simple means -the enemy's aeroplanes and schools- without even the need for
training camps. God gave them the chance to teach a harsh lesson to these arrogant
people who think that freedom only has meaning for the white race, and that other
peoples should be humiliated and subservient, not even rising up when they strike us, as
they did previously in Iraq.
I say that American military power, as demonstrated recently in Afghanistan, where it
poured down all its anger on these poor people, has taught us great and important
lessons in how to resist this arrogant force, by the grace of God Almighty.
By way of example, if the front line with the enemy is 100km long, this line should also be
deep. In other words, it is not enough for us to have a defence line 100, 200, or 300
metres deep. It should be a few kilometres deep, with trenches dug all the way along and
through it, so that the intensity of the American bombing is exhausted before it destroys
these lines, and so that light, quick forces can move from one line to another and from one
defence position to another.
We made use of this tactic after the intense American bombardment on the northern
and Kabul lines," and in this way the years pass and, with the will of God Almighty,
America will not break the mujahidin lines.
Furthermore, it is well known that there are two elements to fighting; there is the fighting
itself and then there is the financial element, such as buying weapons. This is emphasized
in many verses of the Qur'an, such as the following: "God has purchased the persons and
possessions of the believers in return for the Garden."

71

So the struggle is both financial and physical. Even if the distance between us and the
American military base is very great, and our weapons do not match up to their planes, we
are able to soak up the pressure of these strikes with our broad defence lines. And in another
way it is possible to strike the economic base that is the foundation of the military base, so
when their economy is depleted they will be too busy with each other to be able to enslave
poor peoples.
So I say that it is very important to focus on attacking the American economy by any
means available. Here we have seen the real crime of those who claim to call for humanity
and freedom. Just a tiny quantity [of explosives]7 grams' worthis more than enough
to account for anyone. But America, in her hatred for the Taliban and for Muslims, drops
bombs weighing 7 tons on our brothers in the front lines. That is equivalent to seven
thousand kilograms, or seven million grams, even though 7 grams is more than enough
for one person.
When the young men -we beg God to accept them- exploded less than two tons [of
explosive] in Nairobi, America said that this was a terrorist strike, and that this is a
weapon of mass destruction. But they have no qualms about using two bombs weighing
seven million grams each.
After the Americans bombed entire villages for no reason other than to terrify people
and make them afraid of hosting Arabs or going near them, their minister of defence got
up and said that that was their right, meaning effectively that they had the right to
annihilate people so long as they were Muslim and not American. This is the clearest and
most blatant crime. Everyone who hears them saying that they did such things "by
mistake" knows that this is the clearest and most brazen lie.
Some days ago, the Americans announced that they had hit al-Qaeda positions in Khost
and had dropped a bomb on a mosque, which they said was a mistake. After investigations
it became clear that scientists in Khost were saying their Ramadan evening prayers and had
a meeting afterwards with the hero mujahid sheikh Jalal al-Din Haqqani, one of the
foremost leaders of the jihad against the Soviets, who has resisted this American
occupation of Afghan land. So they bombed the mosque and the Muslims while they
were at prayers, killing 105 of them. God save Sheikh Jalal, we hope that He blesses his
life.

72

This is Crusader hatred. So those who speak out and say that they condemn terrorism, but
do not pay attention to the consequences, should take note. Our terrorism against
America is a praiseworthy terrorism in defence against the oppressor, in order that
America will stop supporting Israel, who kills our sons. Can you not understand this? It is
very clear.
America and the western leaders always say that Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, and
other such militias, are terrorist organizations. If self-defence is terrorism, what is
legitimate? Our defence and our fight is no different to that of our brothers in Palestine
like Hamas. We fight for "There is no God but God." The word of God is the highest and
that of God's enemies is the lowest. So let us relieve the oppression of the poor people in
Palestine and elsewhere.
Every possible analysis clearly shows all sensible Muslims should stand in the trenches,
because this is the most dangerous, aggressive, violent, and fierce Crusader war against
Islam. With God's will, America's end will not be far off. This will be nothing to do with the
poor slave bin Laden, whether dead or alive. With God's grace, the awakening has begun,
which is one of the benefits of these operations. I hope that God Almighty will take those
young men to martyrdom and bring them together with the Prophet, the martyrs, and
the righteous.
Those young men did a very great deed, a glorious deed. God rewarded them and we
pray that their parents will be proud of them, because they raised Muslims' heads high
and taught America a lesson it won't forget, with God's will.
As I warned previously in an interview on the ABC channel, by involving itself in a
struggle with the sons of Saudi Arabia, America will forget the Vietnam crisis, with the
grace of God Almighty. What is yet to come will be even greater.
From Saudi Arabia fifteen young men set out -we pray to God to accept them as martyrs.
They set out from the land of faith, where lies the Muslims' greatest treasure, where faith
returns, as our Prophet rightly said, to Medina, just as the snake returns to its hole. Another
two came from the Eastern Peninsula, from the Emirates, another from the Levant, Ziad
al-Jarrah, and another from the land of Egypt, Mohammed Atta, may God accept all of
them as martyrs.

73

With their actions they provided a very great sign, showing that it was this faith in their
hearts that urged them to do these things, to give their soul to "There is no god but God".
By these deeds they opened a great door for good and truth. Those we hear in the media
saying that martyrdom operations should not be carried out are merely repeating the
desires of the tyrants, America and its collaborators.
Every day, from east to west, our umma of 1200 million Muslims is being slaughtered, in
Palestine, in Iraq, Somalia, Western Sudan, Kashmir, the Philippines, Bosnia, Chechnya,
and Assam. We do not hear their voices, yet as soon as the victim rises up and offers
himself on behalf of his religion, people are outraged. 1200 million Muslims are being
slaughtered without anyone even knowing, but if anyone comes to their defence, those
people just repeat whatever the tyrants want them to say. They have neither common
sense nor authority.
There is a clear moral in the story of the boy, the king, the magician, and the monk, of
people offering themselves for "There is no god but God". There is also another meaning,
which is that victory is not only a question of winning, which is how most people see it,
but of sticking to your principles.
God mentioned the people of the trench and immortalized their memory by praising
them for being resolute in their faith. They were given a choice between faith and being
thrown into the fire. They refused not to believe in God, and so they were thrown into
hell. At the end of the story of the boy, when the tyrant king ordered that the believers
should be thrown in the pit, a poor mother came carrying her son. When she saw the fire
she was afraid that harm would befall her son, so she went back. But as the Prophet
relates, her son told her: "be patient, mother, for you are in the right."
No Muslim would ever possibly ask: what did they benefit? The fact is that they were
killed -but this is total ignorance. They were victorious, with the blessings of God
Almighty, and with the immortal heavens that God promised them. Victory is not material
gain; it is about sticking to your principles.
And in the sayings of our Prophet, there is the story about the uneducated boy, the
magician and the monk. One day, an animal was blocking the road, and the boy said,
"Today, I'll find out who is better, the monk or the magician." Because he was lacking in

74

knowledge, he did not as yet understand which one was better, so he asked God to show
him. If the monk was more beloved to God Almighty, then he would be able to kill the
animal. So the boy picked up the rock and threw it at the animal, and it dropped dead. The
monk turned to him and said: "My son, today you are better than me," even though he was
far more knowledgeable than this ignorant young boy. Nevertheless, God Almighty lit
up this boy's heart with the light of faith, and he began to make sacrifices for the sake of
"There is no god but God".
This is a unique and valuable story which the youth of Islam are waiting for their scholars
to tell them, which would show the youth that these [the 9/11 attackers] are the people
who have given up everything for the sake of "There is no god but God", and would tell
them what the scholar told the boy: "Today, you are better than us."
This is the truth. The measure of virtue in this religion is, as the saying of our Prophet
goes, the measure of faith -not only collecting knowledge but using it. According to this
yardstick, whoever fights them [the unbelievers] physically is a believer, whoever fights
them verbally is a believer, and whoever fights them with his heart is a believer. Nothing can
be more essentially faithful than this. These people fought the great unbelief with their
hands and their souls, and we pray to God to accept them as martyrs.
The lord of martyrs Hamza bin Abd al-Muttalib, said that God illuminates a unknown
man's heart with faith, and he stood up against an unjust imam, who rebuked him and
killed him, as is written in the al-Jami al-Sahih.
He won a great victory that not one of the noble followers or companions could achieve.
God Almighty raised him up to the status of lord of the martyrs. This is something that
our Prophet emphasized. So how could any sane Muslim say, "What did he benefit from
it?" This is clear error and we ask God for good health.
God opened the way for these young men to tell America, the head of global unbelief,
and its allies, that they are living in falsehood. They sacrificed themselves for "There is no
god but God."
We have spoken much about these great events, but I will sum things up by emphasizing
the importance of continuing jihadi action against America, both militarily and

75

economically. America has been set back, with the help of God Almighty, and the
economic bleeding still goes on today. Yet still we need more strikes. The youth should
strive to find the weak points of the American economy and strike the enemy there.
Before I finish, I should mention these heroes, these true men, these great giants who
erased the shame from the forehead of our umma. I should like to recite some poetry in
praise of them and all those who follow the same path as Muhammad.
But before that, I would like to stress one point, which is that these battles going on
round the clock today in Afghanistan against the Arab mujahidin, particularly the
Taliban, have clearly shown just how powerless the government and its soldiers really are.
Despite the great developments in military technology, they can't do anything without
relying on apostates and hypocrites." So what is the difference today between Babrak
Karmal, who brought in the Russians to occupy his country, and the deposed president
Burhan al-Din (and din has nothing to do with him)? What difference is there between
the two? One brought Russians to occupy the land of Islam and the other brought
Americans. As I said, this clearly shows the weakness of the American soldier, by the
grace of God Almighty. So you should seize this chance, and the youth should continue
the jihad and work against the Americans. I'll finish with some lines of poetry in memory
of those heroes from the land of Hijaz, the land of faith, from Ghamid and Zahran, from
Bani Shahr, from Harb, from Najd, and we pray to God to accept them all, and in
memory of those who came from Holy Mecca, Salem and Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khaled alMihdhar, or those who came from Medina, the radiant, who left life and its comforts for
the sake of "There is no god but God".
I testify that these men, as sharp as a sword,
Have persevered through all trials,
How special they are who sold their souls to God,
Who smiled at Death when his sword gazed ominously at them,
Who willingly bared their chests as shields.

76

Though the clothes of darkness enveloped us and the poisoned tooth bit us,
Though our homes overflowed with blood and the assailant desecrated our land,
Though from the squares the shining of swords and horses vanished,
And sound of drums was growing
The fighters' winds blew, striking their towers and telling them:
We will not cease our raids until you leave our fields.
Peace be with you and all God's mercy and blessings.

5.2.3 03/11/2001 Crusader Wars

Praise be to God. We beseech Him for help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in God from
the evil of our souls and our bad deeds. He whom God guides will not go astray, and he
whom He leads astray can have no guide. I testify that there is no god but God alone,
who has no equal.
In the midst of these tumultuous events, after these great attacks that struck America at
its heart in New York and in Washington, there was enormous and unprecedented
media coverage, which has conveyed people's views on events. People have been divided
into two camps: those who support the attacks against American arrogance and tyranny,
and those who condemn them. Shortly afterwards, when the United States launched this
unjust campaign against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, people were again divided:
one section supported these unjust campaigns, and the other condemned and rejected
them.
These major events that have divided people into two camps are of great concern to
Muslims, since many of the rulings pertain to them, and they are of significant relevance
as concerns Islam and acts contrary to it. It is therefore necessary for Muslims to
understand the nature and reality of this struggle, in order to decide which side to take.

77

The mass demonstrations from the easternmost point in the Islamic world to its
westernmost point, from Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan to
the Arab world and finally to Nigeria and Mauritania, show that this war is
fundamentally religious in nature. The Muslims of the East have responded to and
sympathized with other Muslims against the Crusader people of the West. Those who
try to hide this clear and evident reality, which the entire world knows to be true, are
deceiving the Islamic nation and trying to deflect their attention from the real nature of
the struggle. This reality is established in the book of God Almighty and in the teachings
of our Prophet. We cannot ignore this enmity between us and the infidels, since it is a
doctrinal one. We must show loyalty to the believers and those who profess that there is
no god but God, and we must renounce the idolaters, infidels, and heretics (against
whom I seek God's help). God Almighty said "And the Jews and Christians will not be
satisfied with you until you follow their faith." So the issue is one of faith and doctrine,
not of a "war on terror," as Bush and Blair depict it. Many thieves belonging to this nation
were captured, and no one moved. However, these masses from the farthest east to the
furthest west do not move for bin Laden's sake but for the sake of their religion, because
they know that they are in the right, and that they are resisting the strongest, fiercest,
most dangerous and violent Crusader campaign against Islam since Muhammad was
sent. In light of this clear and evident fact Muslims must know where they stand in
relation to this war.
After American politicians had spoken, and American newspapers and television
channels overflowed with evident Crusader hatred in this campaign against Islam and its
people, Bush left no room for the doubts or media opinion. He stated clearly that this
war is a Crusader war. He said this in front of the whole world so as to emphasize this
fact. Those who maintain that this war is against terrorism, what is this terrorism that
they talk about at a time when people of the umma have been slaughtered for decades, in
response to which we do not hear a single voice or action of resistance? When the victim
starts to avenge the innocent children in Palestine, Iraq, southern Sudan, Somalia,
Kashmir, and the Philippines, the hypocrites and rulers' jurists stand up and defend this
blatant unbeliefI seek God's help against them all. The masses have understood the
issue, but some still flatter those who have conspired with the infidels to prevent the
Islamic nation from undertaking the duty of jihad to reassert the authority of God's word.
For the truth is that Bush has fought a Crusade and raised his banner high, and stood at
the front of the procession. All those who have stood behind him in this campaign have

78

committed one of the ten contraventions of Islam. The people of knowledge have agreed
that allegiance to the infidels and their supporters against the believers is among the
biggest contraventions of Islam. There is no strength or power save with God.
Look at this war that began some days ago against Afghanistan. Is it a single, unrelated
event, or is it part of a long series of Crusader wars against the Islamic world? Since
World War One, which ended over 83 years ago, the entire Islamic world has fallen
under the Crusader banners, under the British, French, and Italian governments. They
divided up the whole world between them, and Palestine fell into the hands of the British.
From that day to this, more than 83 years later, our brothers and sons have been tortured
in Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of them have been killed, hundreds of thousands
detained. Then look at recent events, for example in Chechnya. This Muslim nation has
been attacked by the Russian predator, which believes in the Orthodox Christian creed.
The Russians have exterminated an entire people and forced them into the mountains,
where they have been devoured by disease and freezing winter, and yet no one has done
anything about it. Then there is the genocidal war in Bosnia that took place in front of
the whole world's eyes and ears. For several years, even in the heart of Europe, our
brothers were murdered, our women raped, and our children slaughtered in the safe
havens of the United Nations, and with its knowledge and cooperation. Those who refer
our tragedies today to the United Nations, and want us to resolve them through it, are
hypocrites who are trying to deceive God and His Prophet and those who believe. Aren't
our tragedies actually a result of the United Nations' actions? Who issued the decision to
partition Palestine in 1947 and gave Islamic lands to the Jews? It was the United Nations.
Those who maintain that they are the leaders of the Arabs and are still part of the United
Nations are contravening what was revealed to Muhammad. Those who refer to
international legitimacy have contravened the legitimacy of the Qur'an and the teachings
of the Prophet. For it is at the hands of this same United Nations that we have suffered
so much. No Muslim, nor anyone in his right mind, should appeal to it under any
circumstances. It is merely an agent of this crime by which we are massacred daily, and
which it does nothing to stop. For more than fifty years, our brothers in Kashmir have
been tortured, slaughtered, killed, and raped. Their blood has been shed and their
houses broken into, and yet still the United Nations has done nothing. And today,
without any evidence, the United Nations passes resolutions in support of tyrannical,
oppressive America, against these poor people who have emerged from a ruinous war at
the hands of the Soviet Union. Look at the second Chechen war that is still going on

79

today. An entire people is once again being subjected to war by this Russian predator.
The humanitarian agencies, even the American ones, have called on President Clinton to
stop supporting Russia, but Clinton says that this will not serve American interests. A
year ago Putin called on the Crusaders and Jews to stand by him, telling them that they
should support him and thank him for waging war against Islam. The enemies are
speaking very clearly and yet the leaders of the region hide and are ashamed to support
their brothers. And what is worse, they even prevent Muslims from helping their own
brothers. Look at the position of the West and the United Nations with regard to events
in Indonesia. They moved to partition the most populous nation in the Islamic world.
That criminal Kofi Annan publicly put pressure on the Indonesian government, telling it
that it had 24 hours to partition and separate East Timor from Indonesia, otherwise he
would have to introduce military forces to do it. The Crusader armies of Australia were
on the shores of Indonesia and they did in fact intervene and separate East Timor, which
is part of the Islamic world.
We should therefore see events not as isolated incidents, but as part of a long chain of
conspiracies, a war of annihilation in all senses of the word. On the pretext of
reconstruction, 13,000 of our brothers were killed in Somalia. In southern Sudan
hundreds of thousands were killed, and as for events in Palestine and Iraq, words cannot
do them justice. More than a million children have been killed in Iraq, and the killing
continues. As for what is happening these days in Palestine, may God help us. No one,
not even animals, would put up with what is going on there. One of my confidants told
me that he saw a butcher slaughtering a camel in front of another camel. When it saw the
blood coming out of its brother it got so agitated and enraged that it bit the man's hand
and tore it right off.
How can the poor mothers in Palestine bear the murder of their children at the hands of
the oppressive Jewish policemen, with American support, American aeroplanes and
tanks? Those who distinguish between America and Israel are true enemies of the umma.
They are traitors who have betrayed God, His Prophet, and their umma, who have
betrayed its trust and who numb its senses. These battles cannot be seen in isolation
from each other, but must be seen as part of the great series of fierce and ugly Crusader
wars against Islam.

80

Every Muslim must stand under the banner that says: "There is no god but God and
Muhammad is His Prophet." I would remind you of what our Prophet told ibn Abbas,
may God be pleased with him. He said: "Boy, I am going to teach you something.
Remember God, and He will protect you. Remember God, and you will find him on
your side. If you ask for something, ask God. If you seek help, seek God's help. You
should know that if the umma comes together to help you in some way, it can only do so
with something that God has already decided for you. If it comes together to harm you,
the same applies. God decides man's fate."
I tell the Muslims who have given everything in these last weeks to continue along your
path. For your stand with us gives strength to us and to your brothers in Afghanistan.
Give more efforts in the struggle against this unprecedented global crime.
O Muslims, fear God and help your religion, for Islam is calling you. May God bear
witness that I have conveyed the message.
Peace, and all God's mercy and blessings, be upon you.

5.2.4 12/11/2002 To The Allies of America

Peace be upon those who follow true guidance.
The road to safety begins with the cessation of hostilities, and reciprocal treat-is a part of justice.
The events that have taken place since the attacks on Washington and New York, like the
killing of the Germans in Tunisia, the French in Karachi, the bombing of the giant French
tanker in Yemen, the killing of marines in Failaka and of the British and Australians in
the Bali explosions, the recent operation in Moscow, and various other operations here
and there: these are all reactions in kind perpetrated by the zealous sons of Islam in
defence of their religion and in response to the order of their Lord and their Prophet.
What Bush -the pharaoh of the age- is doing, killing our sons in Iraq, and what America's
ally Israel is doing, using American aeroplanes to bomb houses in Palestine with old men,
women, and children in them, was enough for the sane leaders among you to distance
themselves from this criminal gang. Our people have suffered murder and torture in

81

Palestine for nearly a century. But as soon as we defend them the world gets agitated and
joins forces against the Muslims under the false and unjust pretext of fighting terrorism.
Why are your governments allying themselves against the Muslims with the criminal
gang in the White House? Don't they know that this gang is the biggest murderer of our
age?
This Rumsfeld, the butcher of Vietnam, is responsible for the deaths of two million, as
well as injuries to many others. And as for Cheney and Powell, have reaped more murder
and destruction in Baghdad than Hulagu the Tatar.
Why are your governments, especially those of Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany,
and Australia, allying themselves with America in its attacks on us in Afghanistan?
We warned Australia beforehand not to take part in the war in Afghanistan as well as
about its disgraceful attempts to separate East Timor, but it ignored warning until it woke
up to the sound of explosions in Bali. Its government then falsely contended that
Australians had not been targeted.
If it pains you to see your victims and your allies' victims in Tunisia, Karachi, Failaka, and
Oman, then remember that our children are murdered daily in Palestine and Iraq.
Remember our victims in the mosques of Khost, and the deliberate murder of our people
at weddings in Afghanistan. If it pains you to see your victims in Moscow, then remember
ours in Chechnya.
How long will fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning, and widowing be our
sole destiny, while security, stability, and happiness is yours? This is injustice. The time has
come to settle accounts. Just as you kill, so you shall be killed; just as you bomb, so you
shall be bombed. And there will be more to come.
With God's will, the Islamic umma has started to strike back with its own sons, who have
given their pledge to God that they will continue the jihad with word and deed so long as
they have eyes to see or blood in their veins in order to establish truth and eradicate
falsehood.

82

Finally, I call upon God to help us achieve the victory of His religion and to continue the
jihad for Him until we meet Him and He is content with us. For He is the guarantor of
that and well capable of it.
Our final prayer is thanks to God, Lord of the Worlds.

83