Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A Tale of Two Osamas

By marktaw in News
Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 07:30:28 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

There are some interesting, and telling, differences between the CNN translation of Osama bin Laden's speech, and Aljazeera's.


The Aljazeera version is here: Transcript of bin Ladin's speech

The CNN version is here: Bin Laden: 'Your security is in your own hands'

There are plenty of the normal differences you get with two different translations of the same work, but each one has some omissions that are very telling.

First Difference

The CNN version reads:

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

The Aljazeera version reads:

But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the America/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a difficult way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American 6th fleet helped them in that.

And the whole world saw and heard but did not respond.

Second Difference

The CNN version reads:

The resemblance started when [former President George H.W.] Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.

Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

The Aljazeera version reads:

This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Senior to the region at a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries. All of a sudden he was affected by these monarchies and military regimes and became jealous of their remaining decades in their position to embezzle the public wealth of the Nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act under the pretences of fighting terrorism.

In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors and did not forget to import expertise in election fraud from the regions presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.

Third Difference

The Aljazeera version reads:

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period required to execute the operations. All praise is due to Allah.

But the CNN version reads:

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

A side by side comparison can be found here: A Tale of Two Osamas

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Transcript of bin Ladin's speech
o Bin Laden: 'Your security is in your own hands'
o A Tale of Two Osamas
o Also by marktaw


Display: Sort:
A Tale of Two Osamas | 186 comments (179 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
-1, links to a blog (1.04 / 25) (#1)
by Esspets on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:17:48 AM EST




Desperation.
Interesting. (3.00 / 16) (#3)
by caine on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:31:26 AM EST

First of all, let me commend you on being the first in a long while to actually use a paraphrase title to good use.

Second of all, and a bit more on topic, the translation I read was in Swedish, directly translated from Arabic and corresponds much better with the Al Jazeera version overall. So either CNN has lousy translators (unlikely) or they cover things up. Which is really really bad.

--

About your signature (none / 0) (#15)
by smallstepforman on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 05:50:18 PM EST

I'm a citizen of the sovereign Monarchy of Sweden, and a loyal subject to the King. Off with his head. It's a principle thing.

[ Parent ]
Beheadings. (3.00 / 4) (#28)
by caine on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:20:11 PM EST

Off with his head. It's a principle thing.

Yeah, yeah...I know, I really do know that it's wrong on so many levels and I'm usually a man of principles, but something of the romantic picture of a King speaks to very soul of me. Can't help it.

Also I somehow feel that still being a monarchy makes Sweden a little more sane and little less ...hasty to bad decisions. We have a very long tradition of semi-democracy. Our laws are still loosely based on laws from the 14th century (and they were actually sensible laws, even then). We even had the King have to go around the whole country to get acceptance before he would be an actual king.

So I'm afraid that by doing something that seems democratic we actually further ourself from all that that made us democratic and help us keep our course. And I don't want that. And anyway, if we were to lose the monarchy I don't want a republic instead. What other alternatives are there?

--

[ Parent ]

good point (none / 1) (#48)
by mikpos on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:48:01 AM EST

Plus, your princesses Victoria and Madeleine are way hotter than any princesses we've got (in the British Commonwealth). That certainly can't hurt the monarchist cause.

[ Parent ]
A mixed story (none / 0) (#4)
by Patrick2 on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:20:54 PM EST

It's kind of hard to distinguish who copied from whom with all the transcripts around.
The last paragraph seems to be agreed upon by all news except Jazeera. The Florida reference on the other hand seems to be more widely accepted, even Matt Drudge mentions it.

I read a few other translations too and... (none / 1) (#5)
by marktaw on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 12:32:48 PM EST

First of all, you should look at the reported times of the translations. Aljazeera's appears to be about 5 - 10 minutes before the CNN one. It's possible the ommission was simply because they wanted to get the story out there quickly and that part was left out.

Also, I heard on my local news something along the lines of "the intended audience for this tape was the US, and the tape came with subtitles."

The Aljazeera translation says "In the interests of authenticity the transcript, which appeared as subtitles at the foot of the screen, has been left unedited."

Which might also explain the extra CNN stuff at the end.

Perhaps there was a discrepancy between the stuff written in the subtitles, and what he said. The CNN one could have been a faithful translation of what was said, the Aljazeera version what was written, and other versions some sort of combination of the two, though it seems unlikely that they would translate the sound if there were already a written record supplied to them along with the tape.

I've seen the transcript on the Drudge Report elsewhere, but I forget exactly where.

I read a lot of translations, and most of them seem faithful to the Aljazeera + CNN version, that is, all the things that were said in both of them.

Some other noticable differences, one translation I read makes it sound like he felt the hijackers were blessed for what they did, while others had more of a "may god rest their souls" sound to it. Similar words, but vastly different meanings, and a subtle use of language can change your perception of what's being said, and more importantly, your opinion of who is saying it.

[ Parent ]

Arabic has lots of "god-bless" sayings (none / 0) (#45)
by PowerPimp on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 06:14:53 AM EST

particularly if you are trying to sound religious, its not considered odd to throw in lots of the following (you can sound like a bit of a nut if you get too into it when you're hanging around with normal arabs):

Insh'allah (god willing)

Bism'allah (Praise be to god)

Allah'hu'Akbar (god is great)

Mix and match. For someone who works hard at his image as a holy man, putting some of these in every sentence is safe territory for OBL


You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
religious gibberish (none / 1) (#50)
by tantrum on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:01:49 AM EST

meaningless rant following: heh.. seems to me like Osama is not the only religious crackhead around. Even though I live in europe, the american government has a lot of impact on european policy, and it is extremely annoying to see the american candidates for the presidency talking about this fictionally character the whole time (any imaginary god should be kept in private and out of politics.) heh.. Our prime minister (Norway) is a priest, and I've never ever heard him including some god in his politics. oh and: Political commercials should be banned. They bring nothing good to politics. hmm... this post became incoherent and just slightly relevant ;)

[ Parent ]
political commercials (none / 0) (#158)
by anon 17753 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:14:10 PM EST

absolutely right on - they are worthless

I'd also like to see corporations banned from politics.

[ Parent ]

Mostly correct (none / 0) (#65)
by weeeeeww on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:51:08 AM EST

Yes, but not quite. Any speech in Arabic will begin with "Bismillah", which is "In the name of God" and not "Praise be to God". You have in mind "Al-hamdu lillah".

And the use of such phrases is incredibly common in speeches, not restricted to religious ones. In fact, it would be almost outrageous for a speech not to be bracketed by the "Bismilla" "Al-hamdu lillah" pair, with the opening often extended to include "blessing and greetings upon the Prophet Muhammed".

[ Parent ]

oh drudge (none / 1) (#55)
by somasonic on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:30:50 AM EST

"even matt drudge" is one of the funniest phrases I've heard all week.

The Drudge Report is not a reputable news source. Drudge isn't even in the same league as a news source as corrupt as Sinclair or as biased as FOX - he's worse to rely on; Drudge is a leading member of the politically-proclaimed "new news," an alternative source of information that came about rather recently, with the advent of the Internet Age. The New News consits of faster, sleeker "news" that has less fact-checking and more faults, but is the first out of the gate. It could almost be called half-informed gossip.

Drudge gained popularity - and far too much credibility - when he scooped Michael Isikoff of Newsweek on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The editors of Newsweek demanded of Isikoff more editing, more research, more everything - Drudge just dropped the story onto the 'net and was suddenly a political news celebrity.

The New News is also seen in a non-Internet sense in FOX News' constant sensationalism. News programming used to be an economic loss for networks - that is, until they realized scandals and sensationalized 'breaking news' were where the real money is.

Do you remember the time Drudge broke the story about Kerry's affair or something? Yeah, the "or something" should let you know that it never really broke. Just because something is covered on Drudge doesn't mean it's reputable. Drudge's exclusive stories contain scant sources, rushes to judgement, and a tendency to sensationalize - who in their right mind uses capital letters, bold, underline and italics all at the same time?.

Now, sure, it's good to have a media source that'll pick up most anything to get it out into the fray, stories the major networks would like to toss aside due to lack of sources - the real issue is how we, the public, need to understand the old adage that just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

(If you're interested in this I'd recommend tracking down the article "The Rise of the New News" by Marin Kalb.)

[ Parent ]

granted, but it has limited use (none / 0) (#58)
by Patrick2 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:09:49 AM EST

I do know of Drudge's reputation and depth. I felt that a pro-Bush site like Drudge could be tempted to go along and run a viable transcript that is less critical of Bush. Not doing so seems to suggest that going with the CNN version is not (even) in his best interest. It's a limited conclusion and nothing more than an indicator.

[ Parent ]
+1, conspiracy (1.12 / 8) (#6)
by skronkasaurus on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:05:46 PM EST


-----
"Don't ever give up." - Me
That's odd, when did CNN become Fox? (2.85 / 7) (#8)
by Russell Dovey on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:39:06 PM EST

I guess CNN didn't want to air potentially disruptive claims like these only three days before the elections:

"In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors and did not forget to import expertise in election fraud from the regions presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

By the way, I hate the way this fucker is dressing himself in the language of the anti-war movement. The fucker wants nothing more than to see Mecca become a glass crater, and he sits there and uses the cogent observations of those worried about Bush's anti-democratic (small d) leanings as bullets in his propaganda war!

And what will most people do? Like good little sheep, they'll respond exactly in the way this shithead wants them to. Republicans will point and shout "See, the dirty liberals are getting their rhetoric straight from Satan himself!!!" while the Democrats will say "See, Satan admits it: Bush has made the world unsafe!!!"

You know, sitting here in Australia with no way to vote on who will rule our country sucks. If you're going to rule the world with your military might, at least give us a say in who leads you! Otherwise your defense of democracy is just a disgusting lie.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

Actually, 2/3 of the tape were suppressed (3.00 / 1) (#10)
by marktaw on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 01:45:01 PM EST

Osama Tape: Mystery of the missing minutes and other stories like it point out that we're missing about 12 minutes of footage and transcript, so not only is CNN censoring the news, but so is Al Jazeera. But if parts of the tape are strategically important, I can understand it not being aired. So even without CNN, we're still only getting the approved version of the message.

[ Parent ]
hmm... (none / 1) (#31)
by Danse on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:45:27 AM EST

I wonder what exactly could be so secret that we shouldn't know about it? If the tape was made by Osama, then obviously it's not info that we have to worry about falling into the wrong hands.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#46)
by DoorFrame on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:38:19 AM EST

I suppose if he slipped up and mentioned something or showed something that gave some indication of his location, <STRONG>but didn't realize that he did this</STRONG> you would have a pretty strong motive to not air that portion of the tape to the general public.  The information would be used by the US government to capture Osama and we're all better off if the news media doesn't point out that he's slipped up and announced where he's been hiding.

Now, I admit that's pretty unlikely, because it would require Al Jazeera to be on board with the US government, which doesn't seem too likely, but you never know.

[ Parent ]

Except (none / 0) (#121)
by ckaminski on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:03:52 AM EST

that as a maniacal terrorist leader, I'd question why those segments were left out of the public broadcast and have a closer look to see why, thereby noticing what all the foolish intelligence agencies might have noticed, thereby leaving like a drag-racer off the green.

Yeah, and I'd never return to the site I'd made the video at in the first place, so the closest they could find me is a city or neighborhood, which is admittedly bad... :-)

[ Parent ]

Not odd, alas (none / 1) (#20)
by johnny on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:38:01 PM EST

CNN (USA version) is more biased and right-wing than Fox, but still (inexplicably) seem to maintain a reputation for balance that Fox makes no pretense of even wanting.

I have heard that international flavors of CNN are much better than the US version, but the US version is pretty much a mouthpiece for Bushco.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che
[ Parent ]

How? (none / 0) (#173)
by mr100percent on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 07:01:28 AM EST

I think CNN doesn't cover the news correctly and there is a slant to it, but how is it more biased and right-wing than Fox News? Can you give me an example?
--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]
Say what? WHAT say!? (none / 0) (#183)
by guyd on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:43:00 AM EST

From Australia: "at least give us a say in who leads you!" Ha ha! THEY don't have a say in who leads them. And our (Oz) recent elections were very suspect too. No Diebold voting machines here, only paper ballots. And _still_ the results were statistically very weird. Switched ballot boxes? Who knows. Incidentally, your thoughtfull analysis of Osama's objectives ("The fucker wants nothing more than to see Mecca become a glass crater") isn't even close - and only reveals your own bias.
Emphirical Philosophy Labs
[ Parent ]
The Missing 12 Minutes (3.00 / 13) (#11)
by marktaw on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 02:02:44 PM EST

This is just 6 minutes of the 18 minute whole, so the final difference - the bit that CNN has that Al Jazeera doesn't is just a difference of opinion as to where to stop the transcript.

Osama Tape: Mystery of the missing minutes

By most accounts, Osama bin Laden's election-eve videotape bombshell is 18 minutes long. But TV networks, including Qatar-based Al Jazeera, have broadcast only a few minutes of it and released only excerpts from it. Why not the full tape and transcript?

The answer might lie in the multiple swipes bin Laden takes against the United States, the Bush family, their dubious – in his eyes – commitment to freedom and their corruption. Even in the portions released, the Al Qaeda fugitive ridicules the Florida fiasco and rails about the depredations of American corporations.

He accuses Bush of negligence on 9/11, questions his legitimacy and the family legacy, and accuses them of being in cahoots with corrupt Muslim rulers to plunder Arab oil wealth. He also mentions the Patriot Act and Halliburton, showing he's on top of issues.

FULL TAPE AN OSAMA A WOE SHOW

On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

A portion of the left-out footage includes a tirade aimed at President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, claiming the war in Iraq is purely over oil.

Al-Jazeera defends airing bin Laden tape

The tape also has English subtitles, the official said on condition of anonymity.



Perhaps Al Jazeera is being smart & pro Kerry (none / 1) (#34)
by jongleur on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 03:24:11 AM EST

They're leaving out the worst 'F9/11'-like criticisms reasoning that, coming from OBL, it would push the voting population to defiance and end up in Bush's favor.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
Freedom of speech (none / 0) (#37)
by drquick on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:14:46 AM EST

This is what follows from censorship. Freedom of speech, just simple freedom to present the truth becomes a manipulation or a threat.

[ Parent ]
I find it humorous... (2.25 / 4) (#16)
by cdguru on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 08:04:54 PM EST

The originator of this, which I'm not going to credit to bin Laden just yet, holds the processes by which Jeb Bush (FL) and George W. Bush (TX) were elected to be governor to be something that was arranged by George H. W. Bush. I've heard a lot of left-leaning folks comment on the utter corruption of the entire US government under George W. Bush, but so far I don't think I've ever come across someone claiming that their father was able to rig the election of both sons to be state governor.

Of course, if that happens to be true, what the heck is the point of holding an election now? Just for show? If you really believe that three elections have been rigged, why not four or five? What would another election be? Just another mark on a long list, right?

So, if you believe this, then you can forget about the US being anything but an oligarchy as it already has been since about 1980. Right?

Not that far-fetched (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by The Rizz on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 02:14:10 AM EST

You could easily say that GHWB was instrumental in GWB's election. You have GHWB's money and Texas connections all supporting GWB's election. Add to that the prestige of having an ex-president who is very popular in the region (GHWB) behind your campaign and it gets pretty easy to get into power without having to rig the election.

Also, while much of GWB's election to governor did have to do with dirty tricks, and possibly fraud, I haven't heard that GHWB can take the blame for anything more than funding the campaign in general. It was Karl Rove who aparrently pulled out all the dirty tricks to get GWB elected to that position.

[ Parent ]

It's just (none / 0) (#56)
by Ward57 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:43:31 AM EST

that he doesn't accept the legitimacy of democracy. So they're all rigged, and he thinks that winning by legitmate means is rigging it.

[ Parent ]
I didn't mean this. (none / 0) (#59)
by Ward57 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:15:22 AM EST



[ Parent ]
s/1980/1913/ [nt] (none / 0) (#74)
by RFID Tag on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:54:22 PM EST



[ Parent ]
It's pretty funny (none / 1) (#103)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:09:01 PM EST

The same way that rampant Republican efforts to suppress voting are funny.  I mean, there's some humor in fliers that urge people to vote on Nov 3rd, or that claim you can't vote if you have any outstanding bills or traffic tickets.  There's also a lot of sickness.

The truest condemnation of our democracy is that the Bush sons were elected governor through largely legitimate methods.  W got a little rough on Ann Richards, but no massive fraud was necessary.  

Now in 2004 when massive fraud is necessary, well shucks, there it is.  Republican staffers pretending to be gay and claiming Kerry is super gay-friendly trying to scare off old black ladies (the staffers left after people started taking their picture).  Fraudulent fliers and robo-callers trying to scare or misinform people out of voting.  There have been hijinks all over the nation during the early voting, and no telling how bad it'll be tomorrow.

Our democracy isn't dead, but it is wheezing.  If thuggery and voter suppression can consistently win elections (I'm hoping 2000 was a fluke), then we're pretty much through as a democracy.

[ Parent ]

If you believe in fairies (none / 0) (#184)
by guyd on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:55:22 AM EST

you must believe figures from electronic voting machines too. "If you really believe that three elections have been rigged" I see that was written before the November elections. Still think elections in the USA are not rigged? Ha ha ha!
Emphirical Philosophy Labs
[ Parent ]
did I go to high school with you? (1.00 / 8) (#17)
by bloodnose on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 08:35:08 PM EST

I went to high school with a Michael Crawford. If it was you, please reply to martin_tlingel@yahoo.com, otherwise, plz ignore.

cheers.

Just the usual conservative media bias. (1.60 / 5) (#18)
by Sen on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 08:38:20 PM EST

The press has been biased towards the right for as long as anyone can remember.

Except if..... (2.50 / 4) (#26)
by Pingveno on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:14:39 PM EST

...you're on the right, then they're biased towards the left.
------
In other news, more than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
[ Parent ]
Both (none / 0) (#41)
by freestylefiend on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:20:43 AM EST

The media is biased towards absurdity and authoritarianism. Some people call it right-wing bias and they are denounced as leftist. Others call it left-wing bias and they are denounced as right-wing.

[ Parent ]
Technically speaking (none / 1) (#101)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:59:25 PM EST

It is actually biased toward the stupid, with a slight right-ward twist given by the huge explicit right-wing media (Fox, Limbaugh, etc).

Our pundits are not journalists, they don't investigate anything, they just sit around and discuss what impact the perception of things might have.  If a dirty bomb irradiated a city tonight I swear to God they wouldn't blink before launching into discussions about how it would be perceived to effect the election.

So there's no truth, no reality, and nothing to really take seriously and act like fucking grown-ups about.  It is all perception.  This is why the Right finds our idiot media to be such fertile ground;  they're long since comfortable with ignoring facts and truth in favor of their own perceptions of the world.  It's a perfect fit.

[ Parent ]

it may be a tale of two osamas (1.00 / 12) (#19)
by Liberal Conservative on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:30:30 PM EST

but i don't care how they translate it, this guy is a tool who i want dead now

i want saddam murdered now

i want osama slaughtered now

i want the freak from north korea to be tied down to a torture board while they saw off his tiny little asian penis and ask him 'who's the man now, dawg?'

this osama crap is ridiculous though

all media is biased to some extent

usually it's the individual reporter

they can sneak it through if it's not drastic enough

all these polls though are what really piss me off, not this osama crap

they polls are using 50 yr old techniques

it's a joke and ridiculous

i have a cell only and no one ever calls me for polls

i hate the election commercials too

anyway sorry to rant but i just had to speak my mind

i'm sure you've had similar experiences

share them

miserable failure

signed,
   liberal conservative

You are not allowed to use <p> anymore [n/t] (none / 0) (#22)
by HyperMediocrity on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:58:12 PM EST



[ Parent ]
hmm.. (none / 1) (#24)
by Kwil on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:54:42 PM EST

..do you really want to be subject to a "look and feel" case by CTS?

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
Parody (none / 0) (#25)
by caine on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:13:20 PM EST

I think he's supposed to be a parody of CTS and as long as it makes CTS shut up (which it partly seems) I'm all for it.

--

[ Parent ]

Ironically, (none / 0) (#27)
by D Jade on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:17:12 PM EST

All of the people you want killed want your leader killed also...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Don't forget Bush (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by gordonjcp on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:21:47 AM EST

Yet another evil fundamentalist madman trying to bring an end to freedom in the west.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Osama makes more sense than Bush or Kerry (2.81 / 22) (#21)
by cryon on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 09:38:47 PM EST

I am not speaking to the differences you say you have found, but to the general transcripts that I have read of the tape. In general, I would say that Osama makes more sense than Kerry or Bush. What I mean is that his description of the events and his worldview is more closely aligned with what I think than what I hear coming from the mouths of Bush and Kerry. I do not trust people who deliberately avoid some parts of what I consider to be reality when they describe the world to me. And Bush and Kerry are telling wme what they see the world as. But Osama describes that reality better tban Bush or Kerry. You may say Osama is a cold blooded killer. But we have killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and for what? Nothing! Osama may have the blood of 3000 on his hands, but as he points out, maybe he was justified. But he is a small timer compared to us Americans. The amount of innocent blood on our hands dwarfs whatever he may have on his hands..... Just my ever-humble opinion. BTW, I am not an admirer of Islam or the Middle East, but I gotta call 'em like I see 'em....
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

Juan Cole (3.00 / 6) (#30)
by Pxtl on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:38:57 AM EST

Both translations sound like unimpressive broken English.  Juan Cole has a translation made to sound intillectual, as Bin Laden would sound in Arabic.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109909250653887930

``While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women,'' he said.

``God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind,'' he said.

Easy to see how a man like that could have such a following if you imagined him delivering that speech to you in Arabic.  He also has some insight on the more reasonable tone he's taken: he's trying to win over Iraqis, who are generally against Taliban-style dictatorship (though often for Sharia law, but Democratic Sharia law).

[ Parent ]

Hmmm.... (2.20 / 5) (#36)
by lordDogma on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:10:59 AM EST

Something doesn't quite strike me right about what you said. I know you aren't justifying his attacks but rather making a comparison to the US. Still, I just think we should examine this guy in more detail so no one walks away with any wrong conclusions about him.

In 1993, thanks to Bin Laden training Somali fighters on how to shoot down helicopters with RPGs, a mission to capture General Aidid's top men turned into a fiasco (in which US forces killed about 2000 people in 1 day trying to get out of Mogadishu) and subsequently ended with a US withdrawal. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people continued to starve to death (Aidid was hijacking UN food shipments and killing UN peacekeepers - thats why we went after him to begin with).

I won't even go into detail on Bin Laden's partnership with the Taleban in Afghanistan and how many lives they needlessly destroyed there.

Thousands of people have been trained in Al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan. In almost every major Islamist terrorist incident in the world over the last decade, including 9-11, attacks in Southeast Asia, and the Madrid train attacks, it seems that one of the perpetrators had been to Bin Laden's training camps.

Bin Laden's minions were trying to procure lessons on flying cropdustors prior to september 11, 2001. We have to presume that their goal was an eventual chemical or biological attack on a populated area. It seems the only thing preventing it was know-how and logistics. But this should lead us to conclude that if he ever got his hands on a nuke he probably wouldn't hesitate to use it.

Furthermore, if Bin Laden is able to carry out his plan of middle east domination, the entire region will be turned into a Taleban-like shithole and countless more lives will be lost (more than it already is).

So, I guess I'm saying that Bin Laden has a lot of blood on his hands even if it isn't him personally putting bullets in people's heads.

Even if you aren't a fan of his alleged atrocities, but are merely comparing them to alleged US atrocities, to say that his rhetoric of slaughtering infidels and makes more sense than Kerry's or Bush's campaign rhetoric is pretty dumb in my opinion. I mean with all due respect, I find it hard to believe that you could espouse such an opinion and get rated so highly on it from people who consider Bush to be dumb. Then again, this is K5, where outrageous commentary is celebrated as a kind of higher intellectual Freethinking (TM).

You might think that Bush's neo-con ideal of spreading democracy and freedom sounds stupid. But Bin Laden's latest appeal about his people just wanting to live in freedom is even more stupid. After all, look who is trying to hold elections in Afghanistan/Iraq and who is trying to prevent them.

Frankly, I can't see anything Bin Laden says that makes any sense at all - even if you think Bush and Kerry are off in wonderland.

[ Parent ]

more info (none / 0) (#67)
by pocoloco on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:43:08 AM EST

"... a mission to capture General Aidid's top men turned into a fiasco (in which US forces killed about 2000 people in 1 day trying to get out of Mogadishu) and subsequently ended with a US withdrawal. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people continued to starve to death (Aidid was hijacking UN food shipments and killing UN peacekeepers - thats why we went after him to begin with)."

For those who don't know much about this subject you should know that the official goal was to help the population. I don't know much about it, but what I know is that:

- Siad Barre was Somalia's dictator from early 70s to late 80s. His oppressive methods created the instability that led to the civil war in late 80s. The US supplied him weapons and military support. Italy also supported him. The US had several reasons to do this (e.g., access to military bases near the middle east).

- In the early 90s there was a recession and a slow recovery in the US. The most probable reason of the US intervention is that the Pentagon needed to keep its revenues unaffected and went ahead with the intervention, as a main objective, to be a People Relation job. That’s why you had reporters that knew were the US soldiers were going to land. The cameras were ready and you know the rest. This is unofficial of course. Up to you to measure the validity of this.

So my take is that I find it to be naïve at best to say that the US was there to alleviate the population. And in the case of the parent post, I think that the author is being overly optimistic that the US military intervention was going to reverse the effects that it helped to create. But hey, it’s just my opinion.



[ Parent ]
Meanwhile (none / 1) (#86)
by GenerationY on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:28:43 PM EST

In Boston and New York they were pouring Guiness down their necks, collecting for the IRA and Madeline Albright was refusing to extradite mass murderers back to the UK.

I hope they are glad that this money was well spent.


[ Parent ]

You know its interesting... (none / 0) (#120)
by lordDogma on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:15:58 PM EST

"The US supplied him weapons and military support."

Every time someone points out something good the US has done, we are met with bizarre theories and unofficial accounts of how the US was responsible for the mess to begin with.

Well, it is certainly true that the US was involved with Somalia in the late 70s and 80s (after the USSR decided to dump it). But there is no reason to believe that minute US support was responsible for the wake of destruction and repression in that country. Even before we came on the scene, the country was a soup sandwich (like much of Africa), having fought several civil wars and endured numerous power struggles. Had we not engaged that country it would have continued to be a shithole anyways.

And as far as the weapons go, the amount of weapons we poured into Somalia was a drop in the ocean compared to others. Remember Mogadishu 1993? What kind of weapons did the Somalis fight with? American M-16s or soviet Kalishnikovs? American AT-4s or soviet RPGs? American M-240 machineguns or Soviet RPK machineguns? I don't think I have ever seen a single American weapon present in any photos of the turmoil in Somalia. Its always been soviet style weapons, as is the case in most third world countries.

I don't buy into this rediculous notion that somehow the US is responsible for the crap that happens in every country it establishes a relationship with. If the US disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow there would still be wars and conflict raging all over the world, most of them having nothing to do with US intervention.

And yes, the 1993 intervention was a humanitarian one no matter how you try to paint it. What makes you think that our policy in 1993 under Clinton was simply a continuation of the one pursued during the Cold War under Carter and Reagan?

[ Parent ]

There are exactly three major sources.. (none / 1) (#136)
by DavidTC on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 10:27:52 AM EST

...of instability in the world.

They are, in no particular order:

The remnants of the colony system.
The USSR
The US (No, the US does not count as a remnant of the colony system. ;))

Or more than one of the above. Vietnam managed to be all three.

Before anyone tries to mention fanaticism or bigotry, I'll point out that nations tend to darwin themselves to something resembling stability. Either they're stable or they get invaded, and everyone lives up happily ever after.

The only time this doesn't happen is when a much stronger external force props governments up at the expense of the region. It doesn't matter if they're the 'right' or 'wrong' government, it completely distorts the region. It doesn't matter if this force is government, or just external wealth.

The reason the world seems so much more unstable is that we've have three very powerful sets of people screwing with it the last 200 years. The US is just the last.

Note that these are just the only generic global instability causers. There are plenty of local ones, it's just that they tend to solve themselves in a few decades. Think, for example, about the American Civil War.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Very interesting indeed... (3.00 / 2) (#138)
by pocoloco on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 12:41:24 PM EST

Very interesting indeed that you seem to feel irritated when other people present different ideas and perceptions. I just hope that I’m not being rude by presenting you with other possible motives that question your assumptions.

“Had we not engaged that country it would have continued to be a shithole anyways.”

Nobody is disputing that. But maybe, just maybe, it would be a peaceful “shithole” or at least not so violent.

“And as far as the weapons go, the amount of weapons we poured into Somalia was a drop in the ocean compared to others.”

This is not the point. The point is that the US administration, by their actions, helped to keep in power a dictator that brought the Somalia’s society to the breaking point of a civil war. This doesn’t mean that if the US had not supplied the armament, the war wouldn’t have happened. I believe that somebody else would be happy to provide him with arms. It just means that it appears that the US administration is not concerned in the effects that its actions have on the local population.

“I don't buy into this rediculous notion that somehow the US is responsible for the crap that happens in every country it establishes a relationship with.”

In my opinion you don’t have to buy into anything. But refusing to contemplate another idea, even one that challenges your patriotism, will not help you understand the reality even with all the facts are presented to you.

As for the “US is responsible for the crap that happens in every country”, I believe also that is ludicrous. But this does not invalidate the perception that the US has a say in most armed conflicts.

“If the US disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow there would still be wars and conflict raging all over the world, most of them having nothing to do with US intervention.”

I believe that you are right. But I think that the conflicts’ intensities will be low, very low, because all sides will be fighting roughly at the same level, as long as nobody replaces the US as an armament supplier; a very laughable idea in it self too. So as you can see, I believe that the US is not the problem, just part of it; like everybody else. They just happen to be a big part of it.

“And yes, the 1993 intervention was a humanitarian one no matter how you try to paint it.”

I’m sorry if my comment implies that it was not a humanitarian mission. What I was trying to point out is that the welfare of the population has hardly ever been an issue for the US administrations, and in this case it makes sense that the Pentagon used this as way to justify its spending to keep military industry rolling while painting it as a humanitarian mission. Thus, the humanitarian goal becomes secondary at best.

“What makes you think that our policy in 1993 under Clinton was simply a continuation of the one pursued during the Cold War under Carter and Reagan?”

It depends how do you define policy. If policy is the reasons and ideas presented to us by the administrations, then yes they are very different. If on the other hand, the policy that you mention is the actions taken by the different administration, then, my perception is that the actions seem to be quite constant as for what they achieve. Only their intensity seems to change over time.

[ Parent ]

/bin/laden and Taliban (none / 1) (#105)
by phred14 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:15:06 PM EST

I won't defend /bin/laden's actions. They're indefensible.

But I will say that I've read some accounts, and his presence in Afghanistan with the Taliban was an uneasy one. I don't know what type of system he would push across the Middle East, aside from the fact that there would be no Americans there, but I don't believe it would be another Taliban. That said, I don't believe it would be particularly enlightened either, but can't substantiate one way, or another.

But the logic of arguments exists despite the amount of blood dripping on the hands: US foreign policy has been far from blameless. By the same token , at other times US foreign policy has at times done good.

Without calling it good or bad, the US was the ones who spearheaded relief for Muslims in the Balkans. Precious little credit we seem to have gotten for that one. Does anyone now what Al Jazeera said, at the time?

[ Parent ]

well take that to the logical conclusion (1.10 / 10) (#38)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:18:04 AM EST

if osama bin laden makes more sense to you than bush or kerry, what are you doing here?

osama has a glorious 13th century theocracy waiting for you, please, if what he wants makes so much more sense to you than what bush or kerry wants, go towards that which makes sense to you, go to osama

please, by all means, be honest with yourself and what you really want

you'll figure it out, someday

it just remains to be seen under what painful scenario of your own creation that you learn some lessons about the words you say and their relationship to the world you live in


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yours is a very typical response (3.00 / 6) (#63)
by cryon on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:35:20 AM EST

Your response is typical of a certain very large segment of the American population (and perhaps it is similar to the population of most other nations, but I suspect that this segment is particularly large in America). There is just a knee jerk reaction to certain ideas. A pre-programmed reaction. First, your ignorance is showing. Very few countries admit very many immigrants, generally. I have actually researched immigrating to another country. So I actually know something about what I am talking about. You don't, obviously. But then again, that is so typical of who you are at this stage in your life, and there are so many people like you.

I will have you know that the citizens of some countries have it much better than the average American. You may think you have it made with your SUV and your TV, but you work pretty hard for it, if you are like most Americans. Many many people in other countries would find it demeaning and undignifying to work as hard as Americans work. THey would liken it to slavery.

And of course there is the whole healthcare issue. Some countries (industrialized ones) have outlawed healthcare for profit. They see it as barbaric.
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

[ Parent ]

Health Care (3.00 / 2) (#102)
by phred14 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:05:44 PM EST

OK, you've partially uncloaked. At least it appears that you are non-US, or at least familiar with non-US.

I submitted this question to Slashdot, (Under a different ID, because that id for k5 is lost and tied to a defunct email address of mine.) and it was rejected. Presumably because they're too busy running dups and old news.

How well does your (I presume) single-payer state-run health care work? Are you, and people you know, happy with it?

Here in the US, every time the topic even gets close to single-payer state-run health care, we hear that it's the WORST thing in the world. Personally, I don't know about that - I think our system's pretty badly borked. A few weeks ago, they rolled out next year's plan, at work. For the N'th year in a row, my benefits dropped and my premiums rose. At the same time, we hear about outsourcing because WE are so expensive - and health care is one cited part of that.

"They" point to Canada's health care as being a disaster, but I have no personal knowledge, one way or another. I do know we send busloads of senior citizens North to Canada to buy drugs at more affordable prices.

[ Parent ]

A fine point (none / 1) (#106)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:18:08 PM EST

Write it up, I'd give it +1.

Clinton tried to get a single-payer system going over here, but was foiled by congressional R's.  The mud-slinging campaign from that left most Americans "knowing" that a single-payer system will bankrupt the entire nation while at the same time making it impossible to get healthcare, so we'll all die in the gutter.

Given the amazing ton of money spent on medical filing (4% of our GDP, last I heard) alone, it is hard to imagine any other system being less effective.  The problem is that insurance companies are businesses.  They make money by paying for as few procedures as possible.  Thus there's a strong incentive to screw people out of their coverage, and insurance companies hire slews of lawyers to help out with the effort.  Our premiums end up paying both for the health care coverage we're supposed to receive and for the lawyers who are trying to screw us out of it.  This is a bad system.

[ Parent ]

Clinton's plan was more of the same? (none / 0) (#111)
by cryon on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:53:39 PM EST

I have not done any real research on the details of Clinton's plan. I remember the hullabaloo at the time, but I was too politically ignorant to actually find out what was going on. Well, we did not have the Net in those days. Now things are different.

According to a documentary made with Chomsky and Herman Edward (entitled "Debunking the Liberal Media Myth" or something like that...), Clinton's plan was still based on the insurance companies. So I doubt that it was single payer. It certainly was not a government centered healthcare plan. You can see or DL that movie from a link on my home page....
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

[ Parent ]

I'm American but I researched the area (none / 1) (#110)
by cryon on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:47:28 PM EST

You wrote:

OK, you've partially uncloaked. At least it appears that you are non-US, or at least familiar with non-US. American born and bred.... How well does your (I presume) single-payer state-run health care work? Are you, and people you know, happy with it? Here in the US, every time the topic even gets close to single-payer state-run health care, we hear that it's the WORST thing in the world. Personally, I don't know about that - I think our system's pretty badly borked. A few weeks ago, they rolled out next year's plan, at work. For the N'th year in a row, my benefits dropped and my premiums rose. At the same time, we hear about outsourcing because WE are so expensive - and health care is one cited part of that. "They" point to Canada's health care as being a disaster, but I have no personal knowledge, one way or another. I do know we send busloads of senior citizens North to Canada to buy drugs at more affordable prices.

Man, am I glad to see some Americans waking up. I took some time off from work a year ago and did a lot of political research and basically researched the whole concept of leftism. I had been a conservative and a paleoconservative for years. Before being a paleocon, I was even a member of the Libertarian Party. My year of reseach has totally shifted my political perspective. And now I am angry about how I was manipulated. My research convinced that Leftism is the most rational political philosophy, and futhermore, that we Americans are the most woefully ignorant people in the Western world when it comes to politics. My research in healthcare was all done on the Net. You can find out what people in other countries do for healthcare. One place that helped me a lot was http://www.democraticunderground.com Many times canadians have posted there telling us what is going on with regard to healthcare. If you donate to their site (you can give as little as $2), you can search their archives. There have been a lot of political activists there discussing a lot of topics over the last couple of years. You could search for discussions where I was involved (dumpster_baby and cryofan). Also, see my home page, http://www.geocities.com/cryofan particulary the page for social democracies. The link to american-pictures.com is quite educational. What has essentially happened here in the USA is that we have been standing still or even moving backwards while other nations have been advanced the state of the art of governing their countries. Our goal here in America in the last 30 years or so has been to enhance corporate business profits, whereas in most other western nations, priority is given to providing a high quality of life for the citizens, at least to some greater degree. Other factors are of course in play, most that is a major one. One very good technique is just to search google for discussions on healthcare, especially ones where residents of a european country discuss healthcare with Americans. Same goes for the workplace. Very different here when you compare us to W. Euro. Search slashdot for my cryofan posts. I have been in a lot of good discussions about these topics lately.
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

[ Parent ]

An interesting question (none / 1) (#112)
by usr on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:56:11 PM EST

I am living in germany and i'm known to regularly make sad jokes about our health system being a planned economy, with all it's inefficiencies, spiced up with a topping made of greedy pharmaceutical corporations. Maybe a good comparison would be the military-industrial complex, without an ex-superdoc warning of it at the end of his term.

But still people shudder thinking of completely commercializing medical care, and saying people i mean that there is _nobody_ questioning the general concept. There's a lot to be fixed, and people are well aware of that, but problems are there to be solved, it's not the NHS after all. Liberating health-care would be seen as the state chickening out of the problem, and as a national defeat of society.

[ Parent ]

what the hell are you talking about? (1.25 / 4) (#109)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:22:33 PM EST

bin laden blah blah blah health care blah blah blah immigration blah blah blah

forgive my "knee jerk reaction": i don't see that you have much ability to maintain a topic in your ramblings

sorry, but: if you are going to reply to me, don't fucking change the subject

i'm so brainwashed that way, you know, requiring someone to stay on the same fucking topic... boy what a blind sheep i am that way

i look forward to your discussion of tax rates and stem cell research in your reply

(snicker)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Logic? (none / 1) (#154)
by scorchio on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:56:14 PM EST

[CTS' orthography corrected.]

If Osama bin Laden makes more sense to you than Bush or Kerry, what are you doing here?

He's posting, shit-for-brains! Oh, you meant the USA? Exercising his right to think freely.

Osama has a glorious 13th century theocracy waiting for you,

Where?

you'll figure it out, someday,

What?

Gnnnarrrrh! Can't believe you lummoxes re-elected that dwarf-twit! Admittedly ol' Cadaver wasn't an attractive dance partner, but Gnnnnarrrrh!

[ Parent ]

Osamas game (2.50 / 2) (#39)
by drquick on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:19:21 AM EST

Osama makes a lot of sense. That's why he is percieved as a threat and censored by a govenment that claims democracy even promotion and export of democracy.

Osamas violence makes less sence, but maybe he knew that the USA would be much more violent. Just like Nazi occupiers were against partisans. Maybe he knew that in the end he would not seem to be the violent or the cruel one. He has succeeded with that quite well outside america.

[ Parent ]

At least you can say that he displays some logic (none / 1) (#83)
by svanegmond on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:06:52 PM EST

Whenever I see the presidential candidates discussing the topic, it comes across as breast-beating, and iconic channeling of mythical American Values of toughness, resolve, blah blah blah. Bin Ladin, can at least be seen to offer an argument - if I hate freedom so much, why aren't I going after Sweden? Nobody important seems to have answered. It's too bad that the modern press doesn't encourage presidential discourse. So far as I can tell, Kerry's habit of adding provisors and qualifiers to his statements - which I view as intellectually honest - has been suppressed, presumably, because it "played" as a weakness.
-- Steve van Egmond · http://svan.ca/
[ Parent ]
True (none / 0) (#104)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:11:40 PM EST

But one can't really claim that simplifying his language for the election is a major fault.  If he rules with wisdom, that's all that matters.

Remember, we're a stupid nation with an idiot chatterbox press and we still have to elect intelligent men.  "Sounding intelligent" just isn't a viable election strategy.

[ Parent ]

What you hear from the mouths of the candidates (3.00 / 5) (#91)
by andreiko on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 06:23:48 PM EST

What you hear from the mouths of the candidates is not supposed to be reality.

The candidates' sole purpose is to win votes.
They operate in an environment of unfathomable manipulation and distortion of reality.

Every time they speak, they speak to a certain audience which needs to hear certain things. That's why we almost never hear a straight answer to even the simplest question.

It is a big and complex marketing campaign. Imagine 2 competing car makers - they have to go to each state and research what is important for the local people - is it fuel economy or price or safety or muscle - and reach the biggest percentage of their audience at with each commercial (public appearance, ad etc.)

One of the reasons for the debates to look and sound so disconnected and illogical is that they address a very diverse and hard to target audience. So if you you say your brand is all about muscle and speed then you lose the soccer moms. If you safe it's all about safety and cargo space then you lose the bud-drinking dudes. So you have to say both in a way which will not alert the other side.

It's an incredibly complex and twisted game of manipulation. It is not about truth but about spin  and manipulation.

It's like, we get 2 minute of democracy every four years, and are fed psychedelic drugs before exercising it.

As for Osama - a man who is willing to be honest about his choice to kill thousands of innocent people in order to give a message - I think he is insane, not evil. I believe that a certain way of living (a culture with high tolerance to cruelty, a prolonged state of war, grand illusions of being empowered by a higher entity) may lead to a person believing that it is OK to spend thousands of lives for a "good" cause.

What scares me more than the insanity of this guy, is seeing the same symproms in not one but a whole group of people who are in control of the U.S. foreign politics.

I am afraid.

-- Andreiko

[ Parent ]

What's wrong with killing people (none / 1) (#149)
by paranoid on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:54:50 AM EST

We are led to believe that killing people is wrong, but still, we watch violent movies and let our kids watch them, we kill the criminals (and Bush was particularly notorious for this as a Texas governor), we ignore genocide in Africa (millions killed each year in bloody civil wars), and we think it's OK to solve our disagreements by war.

Osama is not crazy. He is doing what is right, and the interesting thing that a few decades (or a century) ago nobody would think twice about it. It was understood that if they drive you into a corner, you have the right to fight back by any means necessary.

Osama believes that USA indirectly supports murders of Palestinians. This is basically true, except that we may think these murders are just unfortunate consequences of the necessary military/police operations by Israel. Nevertheless, people are killed and many people don't like it. However, ordinary people are powerless to change it. Suing won't help, writing to the UN won't help, appealing to movie stars for support won't help - the only way to change anything is violence.

What Osama is doing makes perfect sense, he may be the enemy, but he is not insane, he is not evil and he is not stupid. He is just on the other side, let's not paint him black. It would be hipocricy to argue that killing 3000 Americans was terrible, while killing 15000 Iraqis (and 100000 more indirectly) is somehow good and justified.

[ Parent ]

My point (none / 0) (#187)
by andreiko on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 03:46:15 PM EST

Just to clarify.

My point is not that killing certain people is wrong. My point is that accepting the belief that killing thousands of innocent people, amongst which children, pregnant women etc. is so out there, so far removed from the "normal" state of a human being that it borders with insanity.

It doesn't matter if it's someone blasting buildings or someone starting a war or someone on the top of a watertower with a sniper rifle shooting pedestrians. It's the same concept -  that taking the lives of others is OK because something is more important to the person(s) who have the power and resolve to take these lives.

This is absurd and still a part of human nature.
But it's never been easier to kill lots of people so I guess we'll be seeing and experiencing more and more such events.

I personally do not want my loved ones' lives  or my life or anybody's life to be a part of the proof behind a political message.

Genocide is genocide is genocide, no matter what the marketing hype says.

[ Parent ]

Nice Sig... (none / 0) (#122)
by wageslave on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:08:28 AM EST

OBEY ACCEPT AUTHORITY CONSUME SLEEP CONFORM VOTER APATHY MONEY IS YOUR GOD CONFORM MARRY AND REPRODUCE OBEY
--- Wage Slave
[ Parent ]
Thanks. It's from the movie They Live (none / 0) (#125)
by cryon on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:42:24 AM EST

http://imdb.com/title/tt0096256/combined
HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

[ Parent ]
Cryptome.org's Coverage (2.66 / 3) (#23)
by vinn on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:04:30 PM EST

Cryptome.org came up with similar comparisons using a different source: http://cryptome.org/us-eu-gap.htm It would be interesting to see a transcript of the full video, but who knows if we'll ever see it.

Osama (1.16 / 12) (#29)
by ShiftyStoner on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 11:54:49 PM EST

 Ill tell you what this  hole thing is about. It's about getting Bush realected. I mean the norms hear osama talking about getting Bush out of office, what are the norms going to do? Respect what he has to say? yeah right. They will do the exact oposite of what they are told to do.

 Osama and his men are rather inteligant. Inteligant enough to know how to manipulate the american peopl? hell yeah. Is Bush smart enough, sure. So either this tape was a fake constructed by Bush and his gang of terrorists, or it was constructed by osama and his gang of terrorists. Either way the objective is to see Bush in office for another 4 years.
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler

so what? (1.09 / 11) (#35)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:10:23 AM EST

what is the difference between 2.05 pounds and 1.95 pounds?

not much, both are about 2 pounds

so what is the difference between these two translations?

not much, both are the words of an evil madman

sure, some of you might be infinitely entertained by the trivia here

small, dumb animals are attracted by bight shiny objects too

whatever keeps y'all entertained i guess

the larger message from this asshole bin laden should be what is discussed

focusing on the larger picture instead of the stupid details, i guess i'm just a wacko for trying to point that out...

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

*Clap* *Clap* *Clap* (none / 1) (#47)
by BJH on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:45:51 AM EST

Well done, you entirely missed the point.

The article's not about what bin Laden was saying, but rather about the fact that the reaction to what he was saying included something that looks very like censorship.

If he's a raving, frothing-at-the-mouth certified maniac, then his words should reveal that, and there should be no need to change what he said.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Wrong. (none / 0) (#51)
by mns on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:20:56 AM EST

Usama bin Laden isn't guaranteed air-time just because he releases a videotape. Americans are currently more concerned with their own election than they are with bin Laden's amateurish attempt at punditry combined with his desire to get his face back in the news. If news agencies don't give the moron a full 18 minutes of air-time, that's an editorial decision, not an instance of censorship.

You're, presumably, a full-grown man. You can watch al Jazeera's airing if you like. Or you can download the HTML file with the lengthy transcript. If you have access to the information, how is an American media decision not to echo that same access "censorship"? Oh yeah, I forgot... Because it's TEH EVIL BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Blah blah blah blah blah.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a vitriolic videotape to make, which I can then ship to major media outlets, and decry their censorship when they decide I'm not newsworthy enough to give the full 6-hour SLP tape time to me. Bastards!



[ Parent ]
Understanding (none / 0) (#71)
by aphrael on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:19:41 PM EST

so what is the difference between these two translations? not much, both are the words of an evil madman

Interesting; you seem to be asserting that it's completely unimportant to know what that evil madman is actually saying to us. I thought the best way to defeat an enemy was to understand them first?

[ Parent ]

No, the way to defeat an enemy (none / 0) (#76)
by sellison on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 02:35:27 PM EST

is to get his coordinates and feed them to the predators.

Listening to him just fuels the fires of hatred, and encourages copycat terrorists!

Really, CNN should lose it's license for publishing this profanity, and al-Jazeerah should have it's transmissions jammed.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

terrorism ruins our lovely land. (none / 0) (#85)
by squigly on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:16:16 PM EST

is to get his coordinates and feed them to the predators.

Bin Laden himself is one aspect of the enemy.  Al Queda will continue without him.

Listening to him just fuels the fires of hatred, and encourages copycat terrorists!

well, the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" line hasn't shown a lot of success in the past 50 years.  Terrorism still exists.  But what's wrong with listening?  What makes you so sure they don't have any points we should listen to?  Should innocents in Palestine and Lebanon suffer because of our pigheadedness?  Not listening fuels the fire of ignorance, and that leads to hatred.

Really, CNN should lose it's license for publishing this profanity, and al-Jazeerah should have it's transmissions jammed.

And I think that anti-freedom of speech comments like this should be blocked at source.  

[ Parent ]

Well thats pretty typical (none / 0) (#87)
by sellison on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:32:05 PM EST

LIEberals show their true colors, you don't really believe in free speech, you just believe that people who have the same beiefs as you should be able to speak, while others should be silenced.

Which really shows that this is a conflict of cultures, the Right thinking conservatives would like to silence the terrorists and their liberal allies, the liberals would like to silence the conservatives, and the terrorists would like to silence both the conservatives and the liberals.

So it really comes down to do you believe in the way of the Christian God, the atheist way of Darwin and Stalin, or the way of Osama and the radical islamics?

The Christians will win of course, and in our new world, you folks who are wrong will be silenced, but you will not be tortured, murdered, or gassed, which is what the terrorists and the liberals would have!

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Well thatīs pretty typical indeed... (none / 0) (#132)
by micromegas on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 07:55:00 AM EST

LIEberals show their true colors, you don't really believe in free speech, you just believe that people who have the same beiefs as you should be able to speak, while others should be silenced. the pot So it really comes down to do you believe in the way of the Christian God, the atheist way of Darwin and Stalin, or the way of Osama and the radical islamics? The Christians will win of course, and in our new world, you folks who are wrong will be silenced, but you will not be tortured, murdered, or gassed, which is what the terrorists and the liberals would have! calling the kettle black.
Btw, you sound like some rapturist waiting to watch the slaughter of his enemies... and thatīs where itīs really getting funny. Maybe even more funny than putting Darwin and Stalin together, (fyi there were some really weird experiments in the SU that clearly point to Stalins Lamarckist views.) but I really can see why youīd dislike Darwin. Anyway, wonīt be too long till you and youīre extremistic friends go the way of the Dodo, as already happened in civilized countries. Just too stupid to survive.
Life has become the ideology of itīs own absence - T.W. Adorno
[ Parent ]
Actually, its the LIEberals who are aborting (none / 0) (#139)
by sellison on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 03:09:24 PM EST

and birth controlling themselves into extinction.

We Christian Rightists are making plenty of babies, just ask Justice Scalia!

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Of course.. (none / 0) (#143)
by Kwil on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 05:46:59 PM EST

..why do you think we want cloning and stem cell research so bad?

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
You won't get it (none / 0) (#157)
by sellison on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:21:31 PM EST

your evil Dr. Science projects will soon be federal felonies.

Including Kalifornication's little experiment with defying George Bush on stem cells.

HAND.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

and donīt forget (none / 0) (#144)
by micromegas on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 08:21:00 PM EST

that treehuggin' liberal freaks do tend to be rather promiscous while your mislead offsprings will probably die of heart attack the moment they find out what's in their pants or just kill each other following the 2nd amendment ... btw, evolution at work?
Life has become the ideology of itīs own absence - T.W. Adorno
[ Parent ]
So, how does it feel? (none / 1) (#137)
by slaida1 on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 11:48:04 AM EST

Being drawn in the middle of the warzone? I mean 9/11 here. Can you now better understand how people feel when their homevillage/city gets attacked by foreign forces?

Everywhere the attackers are always called criminals, terrorists, inhuman monsters or evil madmen. War is like that. It spawns more hate, it doesn't bring peace.

For the first time US got attacked big time without warning against civilians and sounds like they learnt nothing. Until they learn, "terrorists" will continue their attacks. Hell, they might keep coming for the fun of it or to take a little payback.

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki among other civilian targets. Hate and vengeance are useless and security doesn't come fighting. It's sooo simple and yet sooo hard. Haha...eh..we're fucked.

[ Parent ]

Talk the talk (2.90 / 33) (#40)
by slaida1 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:20:22 AM EST

It's amusing how Osama is the only one of the three who's forming intelligent phrases. He's talking about reasons why 9/11 happened, why he/they will execute other similar operations when given a chance, why he/they won't stop and what is needed to make them stop.

Kerry, Bush and their supporters are in the middle of a election struggle and can't say anything intelligent that wouldn't affect their rates negatively. I think Osama is pretty smart guy for choosing time like this when his enemies can't give back anything meaningful. Result will look like this: Osama talked and these (would be)leaders couldn't care less other than spin his talk to support their agendas.

Masses are stupid and they'll see reason and thought as weaknesses, so Bush and Kerry are left with only caveman rhetorics like "He's a terrorist! We strong, we kill terrorist! Graah!". And the saddest part are the sheeple cheering for their neanderthal-candidates, "we want them to be just like that! no weaklings allowed! GraaH!" Like in the movies, the prez is The (war)Hero, Rambo-like figure who'd save the world all by himself if necessary.

Wow. Masturbating is fun, isn't it! (2.14 / 7) (#119)
by revscat on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:58:57 PM EST

Masses are stupid and they'll see reason and thought as weaknesses, so Bush and Kerry are left with only caveman rhetorics like "He's a terrorist! We strong, we kill terrorist! Graah!". And the saddest part are the sheeple cheering for their neanderthal-candidates, "we want them to be just like that! no weaklings allowed! GraaH!" Like in the movies, the prez is The (war)Hero, Rambo-like figure who'd save the world all by himself if necessary.

Wow! Arrogance and banality rolled up into one. Impressive.

Look, choad, I happen to think that Osama should be fucking killed because he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He's a religious zealot who can neither be reasoned with nor imprisoned. He is a proven physical threat to all westerners, Americans in particular, and I just happen to be an American, and to secular democracy itself.

I hardly think that this is rallying behind Rambo, as I am hardly alone in this. Very smart people think that bin Laden should be killed, and many of them even have a preference for who is running for president.

Having said that, I hardly think your self-serving painting of the electorate in such simplistic terms does anything other than make yourself feel better about the pedetstal you believe yourself to be on. But here's a factoid: in the universe of ideas, you are just as uninformed as they. You suffer from the same limitations, the same inherent inability to see the whole picture, even though your ego tells you how much better you are than those heathen, unwashed masses. I know you *think* you're better, smarter, more well read, better at Google, and maybe even enlightened.

News flash, though, my little blind armadillo: You ain't. You dumb. You ignorant. You know nothing. You not better. You not pretty wittle snowflake, unique, wise, and educated in The Truth.

You are they.

- Rev.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
[ Parent ]

Seems like it (none / 1) (#124)
by slaida1 on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 02:07:40 AM EST

Wow! Arrogance and banality rolled up into one. Impressive.

So far 19 readers think it's impressive. You don't sound impressed. Damn. ;)

Look, choad, I happen to think that Osama should be fucking killed because he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He's a religious zealot who can neither be reasoned with nor imprisoned. He is a proven physical threat to all westerners, Americans in particular, and I just happen to be an American, and to secular democracy itself.

Just like Bush, don't you think? Except he's a physical threat to all easterns. Aww look, Bush's just a puppet and a scapegoat when something goes wrong so I don't want to bash that poor guy alone but anyway...

I hardly think that this is rallying behind Rambo, as I am hardly alone in this. Very smart people think that bin Laden should be killed, and many of them even have a preference for who is running for president.

There's a lot of very smart people all around the world. Some of them may think that Osama should be killed, some of them want Bush dead, some of them want peace for all. Both Bush and Osama will continue their killing sprees. Rhetorics are different, results are the same.

BTW, put them together and you'll get BO, but when you put Kerry and Osama together, you'll get KO! =D

...your self-serving...the pedetstal you believe yourself to be on...you are just as uninformed as they...limitations...inherent inability...your ego...You dumb. You ignorant. You know nothing. You not better. You not pretty wittle snowflake, unique, wise, and educated in The Truth.

Ok ok OK already! Are you insisting that masses aren't dumb? How can you come to that conclusion when watching this election and all the hype surrounding it from TV? Masses are dumb, masses commit genocides and kill by the thousands. And I'm one individual in that mass.

Individuals are wise, masses are dumb. ok? I'm trying to understand that myself, how come many bright minds together make one dumb mass? Haven't figured it out yet, until then I'm pointing my finger at masses and laughing 'dumb! ha ha!'

[ Parent ]

What about Bush (3.00 / 6) (#148)
by paranoid on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:44:29 AM EST

Well, I wouldn't invite Osama to my birthday party, too, but I must admit he doesn't look too bad in comparision with these two wankers.

Let's have a look at Bush, for instance:

  • responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people - check
  • religious zealot - check
  • can [not] be reasoned with - check
  • [can not be] imprisoned - check
  • a proven physical threat to Arabs - check
  • [a threat to] Americans - check
  • [a threat to] secular democracy itself - check

News flash, though, my little blind armadillo: You ain't. You dumb. You ignorant. You know nothing. You not better. You not pretty wittle snowflake, unique, wise, and educated in The Truth.

Yeah, whatever. To me it looks more like your parent poster was actually more intelligent than an average person and said some pretty smart things (though obvious to me). What you are saying, on the other hand, is nothing but demagogy.

The parent demonstrated the ability to make intelligent observations about reality, making several important points that seem valid and are hardly ever understood (much less mentioned) by the majority of people. Claiming that he is no better informed is silly.

[ Parent ]

A few corrections (3.00 / 2) (#153)
by scorchio on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:46:27 PM EST

I happen to think that Osama should be fucking killed because he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He's a religious zealot who can neither be reasoned with nor imprisoned. He is a proven physical threat to all westerners, Americans in particular...

s/Osama/Bush/
s/westerners/Muslims/
s/Americans/Iraqis/

Couldn't agree more!

[ Parent ]

How did (1.42 / 7) (#43)
by nebbish on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:56:08 AM EST

A story with a spelling mistake in the first sentence make front page?

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

...and in reply (none / 1) (#44)
by GenerationY on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:51:25 AM EST

a red-faced K5 stared at its feet and mumbled a bit.

[ Parent ]
who cares? (none / 0) (#49)
by jt on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:00:15 AM EST

It's still readable, no?  You obviously understood what it was supposed to be if you can correct  it.

[ Parent ]
It doesn't matter that much (none / 1) (#53)
by nebbish on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:24:44 AM EST

Except that it looks crap.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Yeah, but (none / 1) (#61)
by jt on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:33:28 AM EST

what do you expect? It's kuro5hin.

[ Parent ]
Ummmm... (none / 0) (#54)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:25:43 AM EST

Which spelling error is that? The English words are all okay, and I've seen 5-6 variants of both Osama and Al-Jazeera in the past couple years, so what's your point?

Now where did I leave that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago! - PDC
[ Parent ]
This one (none / 0) (#57)
by nebbish on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:56:35 AM EST

There are some interesting, an telling

Should be "and", not "an".

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

oh. That's a *grammatical* error. ;-P (2.50 / 2) (#69)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:22:59 PM EST

Excuse me while I go have my eyes checked.

Now where did I leave that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago! - PDC
[ Parent ]
Wow, I can believe him (1.16 / 6) (#52)
by J T MacLeod on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:24:02 AM EST

Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

Right.  Because that's the way it's been in the past, y'know.

Actually he is right. (3.00 / 11) (#68)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:56:23 AM EST

If you paid more attention to what your government was doing, you might realize that.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Pheh (none / 0) (#88)
by kurioszyn on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:37:52 PM EST

Yeah  - viva "Bin Laden" ..

He even has got a beard


[ Parent ]

I personally can't stand him. (none / 0) (#93)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:11:12 PM EST

but I'm not going to say he doesn't have his reasons, justified or not, when he clearly does.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Deep in history (none / 1) (#129)
by Highlander on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 06:01:48 AM EST

I understand what you say, but, since the reasons for the conflict in regards to Israel are deeply rooted in history, it would be fair to question that no "Arabian" empire(e.g. the ottoman empire) never did attack and force its will onto another country and populace.

I feel if "the Arabs" had no reason to feel ill towards another country, they'd make up a reason.

They're not alone in that in history, but that doesn't invalidate the argument.

Moderation in moderation is a good thing.
[ Parent ]

re: Deep in history (none / 1) (#152)
by scorchio on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:41:45 PM EST

no "Arabian" empire(e.g. the ottoman empire) never did attack and force its will onto another country and populace.

The Ottomans were Turks, fool.

[ Parent ]

How about the Persians? (none / 0) (#161)
by schwar on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:46:48 PM EST

I think they qualify as Arabs.

[ Parent ]
Re: How about the Persians? (none / 0) (#171)
by scorchio on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 04:24:09 PM EST

Good joke! (I hope. If not, read a book.)

[ Parent ]
Can you think of an exception? nt (none / 1) (#118)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:57:44 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Well there's a history (none / 0) (#174)
by mr100percent on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 07:19:28 AM EST

Actually, the US is guilty of a lot, so don't just blow it off that easily.

The US gives Billions to Israel, and weapons. Bush called Ariel Sharon "a man of peace" despite his harsh and obvious agenda against the Palestinians, and refuses to meet with Arafat for the last 4 years. The US even blocks UN votes to censure Israel for its crimes and immoral activities.

The US has a military presence in Saudi Arabia. This makes a lot of Muslims nervous, as they are in proximity to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden, a Saudi, is furious over this, as the soldiers both threaten the Saudis and prevent the overthrow of the corrupt royalty. If I were Saudi, I'd be angry too.

Bin Laden feels that his people were under attack, with the US invading Lebanon, supporting Israel unconditionally, and backing the Saudi monarchy as well as rulers like Saddam Hussein in the past. By his standard, the US has been attacking for some time now. He's just saying back off.

What I'm surprised about is that you would think the US would learn their lesson. By supporting Israel and backing it after Israel kills Palestinian civilians, the US suffered a terrorist attack as a result. Instead of going isolationist to prevent it from happening again, the US gives billions more to Israel, and invades Iraq. 19 angry men have turned into thousands. Post-9/11, that wasn't the case; you had candlelight vigils in Iran and people lining the American embassy with flowers in Kuwait.

Instead, we see everyone strawmanning Bin Laden today. Well, he fought back with this tape. "You think I hate Freedom? Well why didn't I attack Sweden, huh?" He does have a point, I haven't seen any terrorist threats on Germany.

--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]

Who cares (1.25 / 4) (#60)
by minerboy on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:16:56 AM EST

What Bin Laden has to say at this point. At best it is good for some comic relief - like this week on SNL, when they had the Missing minutes of the bin laden tape, and had Osama saying that he had been approached by both sides for an endorsement, and was registered by two kerry workers to vote in cincinati.



yet another (none / 0) (#62)
by etherdeath on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:33:40 AM EST

similarity between Osama and Bush, good point

[ Parent ]
Being a speaker of Arabic... (3.00 / 15) (#64)
by weeeeeww on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:43:11 AM EST

The biggest omission is in Al-Jazeera's transcription. The part about "Your security is not in the hands of Bush or Kerry.." is in the video you can stream from their site, but not in their transcript. Also, it is clearly chopped together at that point (see the video linked from Al-Jazeera's transcription in the Related box, and skip to the last 30 seconds to see what I mean), making the notion of it being but 6 minutes of a longer whole quite likely.

The Al-Jazeera transcription is more of an exact translation, in use of metaphors and such (e.g. "the goat and its butting... the aircraft and their butting"), but the omission of the religious phrases by CNN is not really questionable. As mentioned elsewhere here, it's quite normal, and in fact expected, for a speech in Arabic to be peppered with such.

At this point I can't remember the video clearly enough to comment on the other differences. Perhaps later, but by then others may have commented already.

Missing threat against Bush-voting states (1.33 / 3) (#66)
by redelm on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 11:32:10 AM EST

I'm less concerned about translation in-accuracies "tradudore traditore" [Italian -- the translator is a traitor] than I am about outright omissions: This in the NYPost. A clear threat against state who vote for Bush.



Maybe (none / 1) (#72)
by levesque on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:46:42 PM EST

"Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

Some translators are saying he used the word ""ay-wilaya" specifically to mean "state" like in a US state -because he did not use "dawla" a word resembling country.



[ Parent ]

see www.juancole.com for an explanation (nt) (none / 1) (#127)
by vivelame on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 05:19:39 AM EST



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Perhaps (none / 1) (#84)
by mcc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:12:37 PM EST

Rather than an omission on the part of every single translation source except the NYPost, this is a translation inaccuracy on the part of the NYPost?

[ Parent ]
I don't know (none / 1) (#95)
by marktaw on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:20:24 PM EST

While Osama ranted against Bush in the video in the parts we didn't see (according to some news sources), he also specifically stated that it doesn't matter whether we elect Bush or Kerry as long as America keeps meddling in the Middle East.

[ Parent ]
Ridiculous (3.00 / 2) (#98)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:51:43 PM EST

The line before that part he says it doesn't matter if one supports Bush or Kerry, pretty much undercutting the entire point.  And as far as "states" toying with the security of Arab nations...that doesn't make a lick of sense unless you take it to mean nation-states.  Last I checked Colorado wasn't making a lot of independent decisions about foreign policy.

NYPost isn't exactly a non-partisan rag, so none too surprised.

Given how often Bush has let OBL and Zarqawi slip away, it is a surprise that they aren't exchanging Ramadan cards.

[ Parent ]

threat against "red states" (none / 1) (#100)
by phred14 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:53:37 PM EST

Gee, I've been no fan of Bush ever since getting the impression that he was "annointed" as the Republican nominee in 2000. (I voted in the primary for McCain.) After the fiasco called the 2000 election and blunders that followed, I've moved further into the ABBA camp.

But now that it appears that /bin/laden has endorsed Kerry, I should consider changing my stance!

That was a poor attempt at humor. I was going to follow up with further comment on Cold War policy based purely on anti-communist stances, with no roots in our own morals or beliefs. But it seemed better not to, for now.

[ Parent ]

Just another spin doctor (3.00 / 2) (#116)
by micromegas on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:30:29 PM EST

That Yigal Carmon whoīs quoted in the article is kinda mossad guy and a known advocat of torture and the occupation of palestine. Maybe one of the most rightwing ones you can find. Notorious is his analysis of the madrid bombing (hereīs an interview on the topic hosted on the site of his MEMRI institute) in an attempt to side Aznar`s lies. Why the House chose him to report on arab media is up to your own guesses. German researcher Henner Kirchner hosts an article on his background, sorry itīs german.

Note: if a headline calls a human (whomever) a monster make sure to check the background of 'experts' quoted.
Life has become the ideology of itīs own absence - T.W. Adorno
[ Parent ]
ŋHow many ossamas? (none / 0) (#70)
by noproblema on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 12:43:02 PM EST

Today, Nov 1, aljazeera.net publish a new, longer version of the transcript, at the same location. The old version is still available as google cache.

Could it be the full 18 minutes? + link (none / 0) (#73)
by jongleur on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 01:54:12 PM EST

Someone on Kos is claiming so. But it's definitely longer: link.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
The REAL translation IS (1.12 / 16) (#75)
by sellison on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 02:31:56 PM EST

A vote for Kerry is a vote for the Terrorists!

Kerry will have us put our security in the hands of the UN, and surrender Iraq back to the insurgents, who will go back to using it as a training ground and funding source.

George Bush and Dick Cheney will continue the fight, wherever it takes us and how ever much it costs, they will continue right to the very lairs of the evil doers, until the evil one himself is caught and brought to Justice!

Even if the entire world is against us, we will continue this fight until the end, because it is the Right thing to do, it is not a mistake, it is simply following the lead of Justice and our Lord God!

So all real Americans should vote for George Bush if you have not done so already. To even think if voting for little boy kerry is the first stages of Treason! Actually voting for him IS Treason! Fortunatly, Right thinking Americans will NOT let him win.

So don't throw your votes away on Kerry, lefties, you may vote for Nader and not be thought a traitor when the day of reckoning comes...

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Troll (none / 0) (#151)
by BlackHawk on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:47:47 AM EST

Please don't feed. He's just finished masturbating over his picture of Bush and needs a nap.

[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 0) (#159)
by thenerd on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:11:19 PM EST

I've often wondered why he bothers, it takes a strange kind of dedication to constantly spout all this. It must take quite a bit of time; that's what I don't understand - life is too short.

[ Parent ]
Life is short, but salvation is forever (none / 0) (#160)
by sellison on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 01:39:21 PM EST

get Right with the Lord and you will not be so worried that doing His work is a waste of time.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]
Internet videos (2.92 / 14) (#77)
by YelM3 on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 02:48:56 PM EST

Here is a question for you all. It seems like many of these supposed terrorist "tapes" recently have reportedly been released on the Net -- I often hear they are posted at some Islamic extremist website. But I have never once, even with the cryptomes and google-caches out there, seen a link to the original video posting, nor to the original website. Nor are the web addresses ever mentioned in the press. Now presumably these websites aren't located in Ohio, so it's not as if the feds raided them and took all their hardware. So what gives? Am I wrong about this? Where are these things actually posted, if they are indeed posted at all?

Very hard to find (none / 1) (#145)
by lucifer666 on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 08:23:03 PM EST

These sites are very, very hard to find, as you or I do not speak Arabic or Aramaic.

However, if you could speak Arabic, you would see the names of these groups in the various news sources, and be able to work out web site addresses intuitvly, just like you could work out the web site for the Democratic party if you didn't know it.

[ Parent ]

Osama is the new Che! (2.57 / 7) (#78)
by cr8dle2grave on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 02:56:32 PM EST

All that was needed was for Osama to recast his Jihad in the tongue of leftist disaffection. Now he's prime for domestication and iconfication. Any bets on how long it will take for all right thinking campus revolutionaries and otherwise frustrated malcontents to tack the image of Osama to their walls as a badge of their impotent rage?

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


heh... (none / 0) (#80)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:37:48 PM EST

funny you bring that up, there was an article in the globe and mail that covered the exact same thing this weekend.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Got a link? (none / 0) (#81)
by cr8dle2grave on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:50:45 PM EST

The recent release of The Motocycle Diaries has put thoughts of Che in minds of many I presume.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
stupid registration... (none / 1) (#92)
by Run4YourLives on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:08:16 PM EST

but here it is.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Osama for president! [nt] (none / 0) (#90)
by jongleur on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 06:20:37 PM EST


--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
Sell out ... (none / 0) (#114)
by hershmire on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:37:03 PM EST

... And start selling these posters. Might as well make a buck off our disaffected youth.

All I know is I can't wait for Osama to release the single of his latest video.
FIXME: Insert quote about procrastination
[ Parent ]
Iawtp (none / 0) (#128)
by bob6 on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 05:28:43 AM EST

My opinion on the subject (read the part about Pirates).

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Interesting comparison (none / 0) (#186)
by alaplume on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 08:09:18 PM EST

As you correctly state, Osama has wisened up to the language of post-modern disaffection to give himself credibility. His actions however, unlike Che's, can't be justifiable to someone who truly believes his retoric. Che's violence was proportional and humane; it's a contradiction to speak the language of human rights and simultaneously abuse human rights (this is of course an indictment of Bush as well). Osama's intentional targeting of civilians differenciates him from Che. Osama may in fact be some sort of freedom fighter, but he can't pass for anything more pre-modern one.

[ Parent ]
Comparing two incomplete transcripts. (3.00 / 5) (#79)
by curveball on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 03:26:14 PM EST

Your link is now pointing to the complete transcript from Al Jazeera and it does say:
In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida.
No.

Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

Perhaps you could change your story to reflect this?

I don't think I can change a story after it's been (none / 0) (#82)
by marktaw on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 04:52:35 PM EST

I don't think I can change a story after it's been posted, but I'm happy that they did change it.

As I said before, since the whole tape is 18 minutes, and this only reprsents about 6, the Al Jazeera / CNN difference is only a matter of where to stop the transcription.

[ Parent ]

Who is worse? (2.96 / 28) (#89)
by zaxios on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 05:38:43 PM EST

Reading this, you must admit that Osama bin Laden was far more articulate and direct about the causes of 9/11 than both Kerry and Bush, who call it "terror" and refuse to think about it too much. Like someone else observed, both candidates are asserting "We be tough on terrorism" "I'm tough too, very tough" "terror is evil and I will fight it will he?" "I will fight it harder" as both candidates are desperate not to challenge the comfort of their constituencies with any semblance of thought. God forbid anything that forces self-examination. Because that is exactly what America has done - call it "evil", call it "terrorism", vow to "fight" it (can you really fight an ideology?) and refuse to address any American defects. The "we never do nothing wrong - they are EVIL" rhetorical approach is a wonderful way to avoid addressing real issues. The fact is that America is falling deeper and deeper into an illusionary world, where any show of strength is close enough to actual accomplishment. In truth, far from fighting the ideology created from American imperialism - the ideology that culminated in 9/11 - America has nourished it.

No, no, anything but self-examination. We've branded Osama bin Laden as "evil", so we're not going to listen to him. CNN is going to censor the tape so we don't have to consider any of the more controversial things he said, and in the interests of defending "freedom", U.S. authorities around the Arab world will try to stop his alternate world view being aired at all (al-Jazeera ignored their requests not to air it).

"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Can anyone deny that Osama bin Laden has been nothing but successful? Al-Qaeda may have been hurt since 9/11 (I personally think they've just become more decentralized), but in the process, America has hurt themselves more. Who is winning in this thoughtless show of "strength"?

Frankly, I don't give a fuck if America strengths itself into its grave. What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 was horrific, but was it more horrific than the years and years of the U.S.'s post-WWII interventionist policies? What about their toll, both in civilian lives and in the loss of self-determination, of U.S. foreign policy? Let's think about our world, here. Our world's most powerful nation claims to fight for freedom but suppresses its own citizens' with the Patriot Act and offhand practices like "free speech zones." Our most powerful nation pretends to fight "evil" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. So its (new) prime enemy responds to America's brutality with more brutality; America responds in kind. What an uninspiring world this is. Isn't anyone going to do any good? Does such a thing exist? Is there only the pursuit of our own pragmatic interest, the lives of civilians, children be damned? If that's the case, what exactly are the differences between the U.S. and al-Qaeda?

Our media could have a proper discussion? (3.00 / 3) (#97)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:41:26 PM EST

Kerry has already demonstrated a far more nuanced view of terrorism, and the historical role that America's actions have played in provoking it, than he typically uses in his campaign speeches.  Why?  In an election where intellectual discourse is derided as weakness, Kerry is smart enough not to concede just because Bush can bluster more.

I wish we had a media that actually could pursue these topics and an informed public that could actually understand them.  But most people still only have a visceral response to 9/11, and the media eats up the Good vs Evil storyline quite happily, so we as a society just can't have a proper discussion on the topic.

Just because Kerry promises to hunt down terrorists at all costs doesn't mean he solely buys into the reductionist, ahistorical Bushist world-view.  He's intelligently discussed terrorism and its root causes in the past (can't really say the same for Bush, other than that weird time he conceded that a war on terror was fundamentally unwinnable), but you're pretty naive to think that it'd be reasonable to expect him to do so at this point in the election cycle.

Our media would take any such intelligent comments and discuss them solely on how they might or might not make Kerry look weak on terror.  Fix the media before you expect to have any sort of rational public discourse from our political figures.

[ Parent ]

There is nothing to discuss. (1.85 / 7) (#99)
by RyoCokey on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:53:18 PM EST

We are uninterested in dialogues with mass murderers, or useful idiots. Long after Osama and his movement have been ground to dust, all that will be remembered are his crimes. Take his side if you wish, but don't expect history to have pity on you.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
[
Parent ]
Welcome to the rest of the world (3.00 / 3) (#107)
by desiderandus on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:19:26 PM EST

Just because American likes to make 2 sides for every issue, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to conform to it. There are very many different types of terrorists after all. The U.S. government didn't give a rat's ass about the IRA for the longest time because it was funded by Irish Americans who were very political in the U.S. And many western countries turned a blind eye to Tamil expats funding terrorism in Sri Lanka. And in Canada and the U.S., there are militant Sikh groups that have blown up planes. That's ignoring Saudi and international support for Palestinian and Lebanese terrorism altogether. We're all in this shit storm together. How do you reconcile how America and the rest of the world have dealt (or failed to deal) with these problems, both in symptom and in cause?
_________
Our sins catch up to us in the worst possible way; they become part of our essential identities.
[ Parent ]
History Has an Inconveniently Long Memory (none / 1) (#113)
by ewhac on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:57:06 PM EST

We are uninterested in dialogues with mass murderers, or useful idiots. Long after Osama and his movement have been ground to dust, all that will be remembered are his crimes. [ ... ]

Uh huh. And I suppose the same thing was said of the Native Americans after Little Big Horn. Only now, after almost two hundred years, are we almost ready to admit we systematically fscked those people in every imaginable way.

Schwab
---
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions. Priest, Internet Oracle.
[ Parent ]

Little Big Horn... (none / 0) (#123)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 01:26:02 AM EST

I seem to recall that the guy in charge of those who got killed at Little Big Horn had a little title before his name.  Oh, what would that be???  Ah yes, it was:

General.

The situations are totally incomparable.  It's not like Crazy Horse led his people into New York to murder random innocents.  The men who died at Little Big Horn were military engaged in open hostilities, and therefore legitimate targets.  Sure, sucks to be them, but "greater than average chance of getting killed" is, I think, part of the job description.  And when you sign on the dotted line, you take your chances.  The people in the WTC and on the aircraft on 9/11 were civilians.  The sort of people who would intentionally engage in mass-murder of civilians don't deserve even a hundredth of the consideration as the Native Americans plight.

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

little big horn (none / 1) (#135)
by tantrum on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 09:31:40 AM EST

I seem to recall that the guy in charge of those who got killed at Little Big Horn had a little title before his name. Oh, what would that be??? Ah yes, it was: General.
uhh.. I've sort of got more sympathy for the indians than the american army slaughtering them.. Think that grandparentposter (ewhack) was trying to say that.

[ Parent ]
What about Sand Creek? (none / 1) (#150)
by mrt on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:04:36 AM EST

The situations are totally incomparable. It's not like Crazy Horse led his people into New York to murder random innocents. The men who died at Little Big Horn were military engaged in open hostilities, and therefore legitimate targets.

So when Chivington led a dawn raid at Sand Creek, and massacred hundreds of women and children, I guess those were just "thievin injuns", and not the "civilians" of which you speak?

Honestly, your culture is in such denial over it's violence and agression, it's no wonder you have so many schizophrenics.



-

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
[ Parent ]
Terror is it's own justification. (none / 1) (#115)
by darkonc on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 09:59:11 PM EST

We are uninterested in dialogues with mass murderers, or useful idiots.

When you have extremism, both sides consider the other to be the mass-murderer. Osama and his friends killed 3000 in New York. Bush and his friends killed 15,000 directly in Iraq, and another 100,000 or so indirectly.

Both sides use the death and destruction among their friends to justify the death and destruction they sew on the other side -- ignoring their own transgressions.

Don't expect the death of Al-Qaeda to occur much faster than the death of America, unless the US starts to be responsible for ensuring peace, safety and respect for the people of Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east (including Israel/Palestine).
(in other words, roughly about the time that hell freezes over)
Killing a person is hard. Killing a dream is murder. : : : ($3.75 hosting)
[ Parent ]

The difference (none / 0) (#141)
by Peaker on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 03:52:23 PM EST

Is the target. America supposedly targets the military, while terrorists target civilians.

[ Parent ]
Read Osama's Interviews (3.00 / 3) (#142)
by marktaw on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 04:26:32 PM EST

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world. They should have been considerate that the qibla (Mecca) of the Muslims upheaves the emotion of the entire Muslim World."

In a 1997 interview with Peter Arnett for CNN.

More like that on my website.

[ Parent ]

Hmm? (none / 0) (#164)
by Peaker on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 02:16:46 PM EST

He declared war on the US government, but he attacks US civilians?

How does that hurt the US government? It seems to have helped it get reelected...

[ Parent ]

Who knows (none / 0) (#176)
by mr100percent on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 07:33:39 AM EST

I'm not Bin Laden, so I'm not sure why he did it. However, check out what he said in his letter to the American people:
...the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

...This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.


--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]

Oh, and part two of that answer (none / 0) (#177)
by mr100percent on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 07:39:58 AM EST

Bin Laden wasn't trying to boost Bush at all. Here's a quote from the Al Jazeera link in the story:
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
So even Bin Laden sounds amazed that Bush wasn't defeated, that Americans believed his lies. Well, like he said, he doesn't care who wins the American election, he just wants whoever it is to back off and stop supporting Israel's aggression and pull out of Saudi Arabia, among other things.


--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]

Intentional? (none / 0) (#156)
by baloo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:02:01 PM EST

But if despite wonderfully begnin intentions (and more available resources) you still end up killing more people, wouldn't that in some way void any valid meaning of the idea that "purpose" is relevant?

[ Parent ]
Crap. (3.00 / 2) (#147)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:19:39 AM EST

After Osama and his movement have been ground to dust, the rest of the world will remember his terrible crimes. And they will also remember the terrible crimes committed against the Iraqi people. Don't expect history to have pity on you.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Just like the phillipine insurrection. Right. (none / 0) (#162)
by RyoCokey on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:04:19 PM EST



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
[
Parent ]
Oh, sorry. (none / 0) (#167)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 10:28:05 AM EST

I didn't realise that U.S. troops tried sado-masochism in the Phillipine insurrection. My mistake!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Wait, what? (none / 0) (#168)
by RyoCokey on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 02:01:36 PM EST

15,000 or so Iraqi civilians killed and you're upset at the prisoners who had their cocks mocked?



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
[
Parent ]
What, I can't be upset about both? (none / 0) (#169)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 09:45:30 PM EST

Of course it's perfectly fine that prisoners were sexually abused! I'm sure I speak for everyone when I applaud U.S. soldiers for humiliating naked Iraqi prisoners.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
You implied... (none / 0) (#170)
by RyoCokey on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:54:58 PM EST

...that the reason the Phillipine insurrection wasn't seen as an atrocity was that no prisoners were harassed by dogs or fake electroshock. That's nonsensical.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
[
Parent ]
Well, that's fine and dandy. (none / 0) (#172)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 10:12:22 PM EST

You're the person who brought up the Phillipines insurrection, not me!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
It's like talking to a wall. [n/t] (none / 0) (#178)
by RyoCokey on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 12:20:44 AM EST



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick
[
Parent ]
Far more interesting! (nt) (none / 0) (#180)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 09:02:22 PM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
How do you measure it? (3.00 / 2) (#155)
by Gooba42 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:50:26 PM EST

At what point do you become a mass murderer?

Al Qaeda blew up the WTC to the tune of 3000.

Bush sent, at latest count, 1100+ of his own countrymen to their deaths in Iraq and through his action brought about the deaths of about 15,000 civilians and by some esitmates possibly 100,000 indirectly killed. All for a very vague set of objectives which change every time we fail to meet one.

We're fighting Al Qaeda!
Errr... no Al Qaeda.. umm..
We're searching for WMDs!
Err... no WMDs... ummm..
We're replacing an evil regime with a better regime!
Err... the people are resisting our efforts to install a new government to rule them... ummm...
We're fighting some other terrorist organization and we're not quite sure who they are!

How long do we get to sit back and call names while people die?

[ Parent ]

One other difference between the US and Al Qaeda (none / 0) (#166)
by rswelling on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 02:42:53 AM EST

At LEAST 50% of those of us who vote (no i don't "support" kerry, that's another post entirely) here in the US are trying to change our government's policies (admittedly we lost a big battle earlier this week, but not by much my friend), and they (Osama and his fun bunch) are not really helping us out. We are in the middle of a civil war, during this election the grass roots, and the left and others really brought the fight to Bush and company, so don't say "america" does not self examine. i don't think 50% of Al Queda are doing the same within their "organization". we are americans as well. You are correct to point out the many horrific things our various governments have done over the years, however you might want to consider some of the good things the american people as a whole have accomplished, and also consider the many actual freedoms we enjoy, and still fight for. you seem to be preaching from a pretty high place, mind if i ask exactly which blood free nation you come from? fight with us to remove the neo-cons, not by attacking us with violence.
"Their army is how much bigger than mine? Three percent? Well shucks, Bubba. Now is the time to establish a network and an attitude,"...We're still here." - Hunter S. Thompson
[ Parent ]
He sounds tired and defeated. (1.50 / 2) (#94)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:17:15 PM EST

What happened to the talk of jihad? Where is his automatic rifle? Why isn't he outdoors like a proper revolutionary for Allah? Who is this guy explaining his feelings? This is the terror threat we knew and loved once? Please! This is just a little girl who dressed up like Osama for Halloween, and you are all hysterical cunts.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

Now *that* would be a popular costume [nt] (none / 1) (#96)
by marktaw on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 07:21:18 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Come now (2.75 / 4) (#108)
by Mason on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 08:21:06 PM EST

If you'd killed 3000 people, you'd probably want others to at least understand why.  I mean, our government has killed close to 100,000 in Iraq (15,000 through direct combat w/ US troops, the rest through civil decay and disorder), and I wonder why it happened all the time.

[ Parent ]
body count (none / 1) (#134)
by tantrum on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 09:25:56 AM EST

according to iraq body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) there is between 14 and 16000 civilian deaths in Iraq directly because of military operations. I'd expect the military losses to be even higher. Personally I believe that Iraq is going to be knee deep in shit for the next decade, nomatter when the foreign forces pull out. war sure is utterly stupid.

[ Parent ]
100,000 dead? (none / 1) (#140)
by Mason on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 03:27:47 PM EST

When water and power are cut off in urban populations...in the desert...in the middle of summer...people die.

The 100,000 number being floated is taking into account people dying from a wide variety of issues peripheral to the war itself.  I don't know how much faith to put in it, but then it is naive to only hold America accountable for Iraqis killed by direct fire.  

IraqBodyCount holds itself to pretty high standards of reporting before they add a kill to the count.  That's commendable, but doesn't provide a very firm ceiling.  I imagine the truth is somewhere between 14k and 100k, but it is heavily shaded by where you feel American responsibility ends.

[ Parent ]

re: 100.000 dead (3.00 / 2) (#146)
by tantrum on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:15:56 AM EST

my point was only that it seemed extremely high with 15.000 civilians killed by the invading force. If you are to fight a war, make sure not to bomb the civilian population.

Killing of civilians is what makes the Israel and to some extent US rather unpopular in Europe.



[ Parent ]
re: 100.000 dead (none / 0) (#181)
by Stephan Schulz on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:55:20 AM EST

Killing of civilians is what makes the Israel and to some extent US rather unpopular in Europe.
It is also counterpoductive, as it creates new "terrorists". It seems to be very hard for many people to see the symmetry in the situation. If you kill my brother|sister|father|mother|friends, I'm going to be mightily pissed off.

It is very educational to see Rambo 2 and 3 with an ironic eye to the current situation. Just imagine the pictures from Abu Ghraib would show some of your friends or family in the victim role. Wouldn'd you be justified in going in like Stallone, with guns blasting? Well, in Irak that gets you labelled a terrorist...

And notice how the very same Afghan fanatics now considered terrorists are heroic fighers against the Soviets in Rambo 3 - although the fight with the same means and motivation as today (and a very similar rate of casualties).


Stephan
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#185)
by tantrum on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:41:21 AM EST

You make good points, however I've (fortunately?) not seen any of the Rambo movies. To peacefull to watch movies like that :)

However I really don't think that most "terrorist" are recruited because of the war in Iraq or Afganistan.

It seems to me to be much more important what Israel is doing to the Palestininan population. Trashing whole buildings because of a single terrorist lived there, building walls around the palestinian areas etc.
I'm not sure what is worse, suicide bombers or anonymous bomber-pilots. One thing is for certain, more Palestinian civilians are killed than israelians.

Well, the palestininans have lived in the area for ages, an when Israel was founded it was supposed to coexist with the palestinian population. I really don't care that some fictious god claimed that the Jews where his chosen people, and that they should have the land.

offtopic:
Well, Norwegians discovered Iceland, Greenland and Vinland. Odin gave us that land, and I want it back (hehe ;p). I guess some terrorists from the US would attack us if anybody tried to do that..

[ Parent ]

But look at the methodology (none / 1) (#175)
by mr100percent on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 07:24:09 AM EST

Stephen Soldz has a very good article on the estimated 100,000 excess Iraqi deaths since the beginning of the war. With this methodology, it cannot be lightly dismissed, even if a lot of people take the upper limits of the estimates.


--Never trust a guy who tattoes his IP address to his arm, especially if it's DHCP.
[ Parent ]

Yes, what happened? (2.33 / 3) (#126)
by drquick on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 04:52:32 AM EST

Something has happened. He seems wiser. It's a true change in his tactics. Was this forced upon him or was it an anticipated part of the plan. Maybe 911 was supposed to be a sting that forces the USA into this foolish war on terror. On the other hand Osama might just by coincidence drive USA into this foolish pursuit. Maybe bigger players are behind him, governments, Russia, China, DPRK, some Arab country, who knows?

All in all he has changed into something much smarter.

[ Parent ]

CNN reports the release of the full transcript. (3.00 / 2) (#117)
by schickl on Mon Nov 01, 2004 at 10:33:58 PM EST

Here.

Interesting how the headline is entitled "Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S." Seems a little dishonest to me. I'd say his goal is to stop the perceived oppression of his people by America. If it is not done voluntarily, then his method will be to bait the US into bankruptcy.

Where have I heard this before.... (none / 1) (#165)
by ajs on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 08:07:58 PM EST

So his plan is to bait the US into expending ever-increasing resources until we're broke... hmmm... I know I've heard of that before, but I'm just not sure where. Let me just go ask my former-Soviet friend if he's heard of this before ;-)

Seriously, it is a plan that works, but it works over a period of decades, and requires a tremendous amount of resources to pull off. I don't think bin Laden can win this way. I think his only hope is to work with those countries who have been alienated by the US and try to build a real POLITICAL power based instead of one based on murder-as-protest. Unfortunately he's not going to be very effective at that with a multi-million-dollar price tag on his head.

Too bad. If he really believes what he says, then he's doing everything against his own stated purposes.
-- Aaron Sherman <ajs@ajs.com>
[ Parent ]

The Osama Interviews (3.00 / 6) (#130)
by marktaw on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 06:21:13 AM EST

1996

This big mistake by the Saudi regime of inviting the American troops revealed their deception. ... The ordinary man knows that his country is the largest oil producer in the world, yet at the same time he is suffering from taxes and bad services. Now the people understand the speeches of the ulemas in the mosques - that our country has become an American colony.

1996

As for the relationship between the regime and the American occupiers, these operations have embarrassed both sides and have led to the exchange of accusations between them. So we have the Americans stating that the causes of the explosions are the bad policies of the regime and the corruption of members of the ruling family, and the regime is accusing the Americans of exceeding their authority by taking advantage of the regime and forcing it to enter into military and civil contracts which are beyond its means, which led to great economic slide which has effected the people. In addition to this is the behaviour of the Americans with crudeness and arrogance with the Saudi army and their general behaviour with citizens, and the privileges which the Americans enjoy in distinction from the Saudi forces.

1997

As for oil, it is a commodity that will be subject to the price of the market according to supply and demand. We believe that the current prices are not realistic due to the Saudi regime playing the role of a US agent and the pressures exercised by the US on the Saudi regime to increase production and flooding the market that caused a sharp decrease in oil prices.

...

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world

...

As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places

1998

They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice. And the United Nations insistence to convict the victims and support the aggressors constitutes a serious precedence which shows the extent of injustice that has been allowed to take root in this land.

...

We however, differentiate between the western government and the people of the West. If the people have elected those governments in the latest elections, it is because they have fallen prey to the Western media which portray things contrary to what they really are. And while the slogans raised by those regimes call for humanity, justice, and peace, the behavior of their governments is completely the opposite. It is not enough for their people to show pain when they see our children being killed in Israeli raids launched by American planes, nor does this serve the purpose. What they ought to do is change their governments which attack our countries.

...

The Western regimes and the government of the United States of America bear the blame for what might happen. If their people do not wish to be harmed inside their very own countries, they should seek to elect governments that are truly representative of them and that can protect their interests.

More at The Osama bin Laden interviews

New, fuller translations (3.00 / 3) (#131)
by Tayssir John Gabbour on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 07:45:15 AM EST

These appear to be far meatier than the previous. I don't know if it's the entire tape, or what, but what I've skimmed is more interesting.

http://cryptome.org/us-eu-gap.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Aljazeera: Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech (none / 1) (#133)
by marktaw on Tue Nov 02, 2004 at 09:11:17 AM EST

That about says it all. It's definately more interesting, and there was very little in there that made me think it needed to be suppressed by Washington as long as it was.

[ Parent ]
The Pot and The Kettle (none / 0) (#163)
by bsdbigot on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 04:21:24 AM EST

I was just wondering if maybe CBS had a translation that provides a third iteration. I trust CNN just about as much as I trust Al Jazeera.

On a more serious note, I'll bet that Adam Azzam guy is the one we should be getting to translate bin Laden's speech for us; there will likely be a lot less bias than any other translation.
<:) L

A missing "not" in transcript (none / 0) (#182)
by guyd on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 06:46:38 AM EST

URLs of Bin Laden 'pre-election' address to Americans

Aljazeera transcript of English subtitles on video:
  http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
AFP translation of Arabic to English:
  http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=32295
Aljazeera's own excerpts:
  http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8BAF429F-BADD-40E2-AD66-712FCF7D7A95.htm

Video: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F/53232/Binladin.asf
2.4MB   5 minutes 24 sec, not counting aljazeera pre & post amble. So it is not the same edit as put to air (4 minutes), nor the full tape (18 minutes.)
This has English subtitles (too blurred to read), however it looks like they were added to the video by Aljazeera, since they form part of a fancy station logo graphic and border to the smaller frame containing the bin Laden clip. Bin Laden is reading from notes (no teleprompter), and there are a few edit cuts. So we still don't know whether the 'full transcript from Aljazeera' text originated from bin Laden - or whether its a translation by someone else.
Pity the subtitles can't be read. Would be good to see if the 'missing not' is there, and how the text correlates with his hand gestures.

Possible error in the text:

1. Missing 'not' in aljazeera transcript:

From the aljazeera transcript:
  "...that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration..."

From the AFP translation:
  "We did not find it hard to deal with Bush and his administration..."

From the Aljazeera 'excerpts' article:
  "We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration..."

It looks pretty certain BinLaden is saying he did a deal with (or manipulated?) Bush.

I can't find any downloadable copy of the entire video. Anyone know if this exists? URL?

It is very, very sickening to read everyone and their dog misquoting excerpts from the speech, and twisting them to mean whatever they like. I still think Osama is saying 911 was Bush's idea, AlQaeda merely helped. Much else as well, not mentioned in most commentaries.

Most amazing though, is that so many people dare to discuss such things, without including a full and true transcript of the statement they are discussing. Years of media lies and distortion have resulted in most people habitually ignoring even the most blatent methods of deception.
Emphirical Philosophy Labs

A Tale of Two Osamas | 186 comments (179 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest Đ 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!