Some problems with the Osama tape..

Everyone knows 9-11 was a Bush ordered mossad/cia plot to justify Bush's imperial war against the peace loving religion of islam to claim the oil for christian domination of the word.

It was ceated in the backroom of a Kinkos in Boston using a digital camcorder and a G5 iMac. Kerrry himself played the role of OBL.

On a serious note, this tape is indeed a far departure from those of the past, but doesn't it make sense that OBL would want it this way? He is a bright guy and he wanted Americans to hear his message. The usual Islamic banter would not have been as effective as this. He even parroted F911! As far has Atta, hasn't OBL praised him before? Perhaps his lifrstyle was not at important to OBL as his success in carrying out the mission?

I'm surprised that no one has noticed that prior to this tape, all other tapes were aired in the Mid East first and news of the tape his the U.S. before the tape itself. This tape on the other hand mysteriously shows up in the U.S. and there's no talk of it airing in the Mid East.

Didn't this on come through A-J?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...86A911DDF7.htm

A very important problem, perhaps the most important, and one which has not yet been mentioned here, was pointed out by the all important, all knowing, everybody-loves-him, Walter Cronkite. From CNN's Larry King Live, Friday, October 29th, "[I am] inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

Not to my knowlege. The first I heard of it was that the tape was being shown in the U.S. It could have started in the Mid East, but there was no coverage of it until it hit our shores.

You raise some good points segovius. The lack of a complete transcript 48 hours after this thing surface is suspicious. How much of the tape was played on A-J? Did anyone here who understands Arabic here it?

Al-Jazeera has first aired that tape, and has made its own translation , which I found though the page linked above.

The network's claim is:

Feel free to judge whether they are worthy of your trust, as the motto of the postwar Soviet-zone Berlin newsreel firm DeFA said: Sehen Sie selbst, hören Sie selbst, urteilen Sie selbst!

And on that same page they also link to a video file of horrendous visual quality but of more than audible audio.

I deduce then that the same organisation has posted the transcript in the original Arabic on one if its Arabic pages.

Well they do claim it is undedited rather than full of course. The translation is more unprofessional than biased if you ask me.


No, I haven't. I might look for it if I have the time.

I did listen to the speech though.
While my command of Arabic is not as good it should be (mostly due to lack of exercise) I do hear it better than I read it.
Despite my flawed undestanding I could detect a few imprecisions (a-Sha'ab al-Amriki is more accurately translated as the American people than people of the United States) as well as omissions, the most notable being at the end of the speech, when he talks about security not being in the hands Kerry, Bush or al-Qa'eda.
But the rest is there (including honourable mention of martyr-in-chief Muhammad Atta).

If he wasn't the real Osama, I expect those more familiar with him than myself, like Mr. Abdulbari Atouane (editor of the London newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi), would have expressed their suspicions about on Newsnight or something.

It's just like that movie Rio.

I, too, have been searching for the full transcript to no avail. This kos diary provides what may or may not be a few clues. bin Laden's Message The diarist and others (see comments) state:


In the comments, someone claims that

[Just an aside, I have to say, when it comes to referencing, kos people are hopeless. Whatever AI's faults and shortcomings may be, as far as referencing goes, WE RULE! I think of it as Future Hardware's gift to us all.]

Somewhere else on kos I read that this video is the first to come with English subtitles. That it had subtitles when AJ got it seems to be confirmed in the AJ quote in Immanuel Goldstein's post above.

I am unconvinced by the "it's an impostor" sites thus far. It could be a Machi-Rovellian stunt but if so, by design, it will be almost impossible to prove.

I have read the "it's not OBL's language" theories as well as other departures it makes from previous videos eg. no kalashnikov, may be in a TV studio, no henchman standing around etc. I wonder however, whether we have seen and heard enough of him in the past to say these are significant departures from the norm. What is the norm?

And yet, I'm left with the feeling this one is somehow "different".

We've had Defiant Osama, Rabid Osama, Fugitive Osama but to me (and contrary to your interpretation segovius), I felt like the role he's adopted here is Statesman Osama. He sounds so goddamn reasonable, calm, measured. And it's so personal. I didn't read it as him adopting the orthodox "bad guy" role but rather patiently trying to explain (almost with what sounds like regret in parts - almost but not quite) why it has come to this.

The whole freedom/security thing is pretty weird especially when he drops mention of the Patriot Act in later on. The Bush Dynasty/Arab rulers comparison is fascinating although I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

He's echoing what increasing numbers of Americans have started saying - we meddled in the Middle East when we shouldn't have and now it's coming back to bite us on the bum.

Don't take this as some sort of defence of OBL. I just think, to try to discover the truth, you have to be as devoid of emotion as possible. Emotion is for after you know the truth - any earlier and it just gets in the way.

If he's trying to endorse either Kerry or Bush, he's done a darn good job of obscuring the fact. He could have just done an Iran after all.

In some translations, the concluding remark has been expressed along the lines of "the reasons for attacks in the past still exist and may lead to more in the future". This is the "threat" version. Other translations include the following:



To me, it's almost like he's offering a deal. One Arab commentator I saw on the box went so far as to describe it as an olive branch. Depending on the accuracy of the translations what it does do is contradict the line that this is a war against the infidel's that won't be won until every last one is dead. I mean, he's saying there could be an end to it all. What the?

Two things I've been pondering:

1. Last time OBL wanted to make a point and get the world to sit up and take notice, he flew planes into buildings. This time he didn't have to. We're all listening now. Doesn't mean he's going to convince anybody, of course. But what better time to grab everybody's attention than a few days before the US election. But then why now? Why after 4 years is he suddenly trying so hard to make us understand his actions?

2. Could this be directed to the Arab world as well? I don't know enough about ME politics to know if this is too outlandish a suggestion but the "Statesman" role made me wonder. The idea goes something like this:
- one basket case Muslim nation (Iraq) ripe for a strong leader to step up to the plate - check
- swipe at the oppressive Arab rulers, a sentiment I'm thinking is maybe shared by many in the ME - check
- what else happened this week? why Yasser Arafat looked like he might drop off his perch. As I understand it, he has not annointed a clear successor. Pitch to Palestinians - check

Anyway, basically buggered if I know. I'm with this Talk Left poster at the moment:

I just went back to reread this bit in the various transcripts. As I was reading the AJ one, I realized I was reading stuff in it I hadn't read yesterday (or when I made the above post). It now says it's the full transcript.

No supposedly 18 minutes long (5 minutes originally released + 13 missing). The full transcript is considerably longer. Have to compare their lengths later to see if it accounts for the missing 13 minutes. (I copied the original).

After reading the whole thing.......

Holy crap! Talk about take no prisoners.

What do you do when your worst enemy looks you straight in the eye and tells you the truth?

Why'd it take 3 days to appear?

very, very intersting speech. it's dispicable that the people in DC didn't want this released

wow, That speach was pretty interesting...

You mean the people in the White House. DC is very pro-Democrat.