# A new "Bin-Laden" tape...



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2007)

This is the "weirdest" one yet.  It's a convenient wonder that UBL would say all of this stuff...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20640658/



> SYDNEY, Australia - President Bush said Saturday that Osama bin Laden's first video appearance in three years is a reminder of "the dangerous world in which we live."


 
Yes, Mr. President.  We are afraid.  It is our patriotic duty.  



> "I found it interesting that on the tape, Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is a part of this war against extremists," Bush said. "If al-Qaida bothers to mention Iraq, it's because they want to achieve their objectives in Iraq, which is to drive us out and to develop a safe haven. And the reason they want a safe haven is to launch attacks against America or any other ally."


 
Thanks, Mr. Newsman.  Gee, it would be nice to actually see what UBL said, but I guess your summary is good enough.  I think we should stay in iraq for at least 1000 years now...



> You elected the Democratic Party for this purpose," he says, according to a translated transcript of the tape. On the contrary, they continue to agree to spending of tens of billions to continue the killings and the war there.


 
UBL is a nastly little truthseeing bastard.  I think that someone has a pretty clear picture of what most liberals fear when they turn the light off at night...



> He goes on to deride Bush, saying Washington was backing Shiites against Sunnis in Iraq but that events in Iraq had gotten "out of control," and Bush had become "like the one who plows and sows the sea: he harvests nothing but failure."


 
My fellow Amuricanz, UBL is a lyin' terrarist.  Neva mind the man behin' the curtain."



> Bin Laden also recommends reading books by American authors Noam Chomsky and Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst. Chomsky's book cites various examples of American imperialism, while Scheuer's book argues that the U.S. does not understand the Islamic predicament.


 
Hey, didn't Hugo Chavez cite those books?  Now, it's UBL!  Man, someone better throw those guys into some sort of prison or something.  I beleive that Senator Graham mentioned something about a "fifth" column...



> Bin Laden urges the U.S to embrace Islam if they want the war in Iraq to end.
> 
> "There are two solutions to stopping it. One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out," bin Laden says, according to the transcript.
> 
> "The second solution is from your side," he says. "I invite you to embrace Islam."


 
UBL found the perfect thing to tell the "christian" nation.  I'm sure 80 million people will be out there praying on Sunday that this doesn't happen.  Meanwhile, they continue to support the permanent bases in Iraq...



> The United States intercepted the video before it was released on Islamic Web sites where al-Qaida usually posts its messages, a U.S. counterterrorism official said, without elaborating on how. U.S. officials analyzed the video for hours before transcripts and videos were leaked, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.


 
Now THAT is really ****ing interesting...



> The release of the video may have been driven by reports that bin Laden is dead, NBC News' Robert Windrem said. U.S. intelligence officials have been quoted, as they were before the 2004 tape, as saying there are equal bodies of evidence that bin Laden was alive or dead.
> 
> Al-Qaidas media arm, Al-Sahab, announced bin Ladens new message in a banner advertisement on an Islamic militant Web site that included a photo of him.
> 
> ...


 
The beard issue is probably the most interesting thing about all of the news reports about the latest UBL video.  They always make sure to tell us that that lots of "officials" think the UBL is dead, but then they say that he just might be alive.  Then they point out the beard and say stuff like "Oh, he might be a fake BL, but he might be real because Arabs often dye their beards."

Especially when they are "supposedly running from cave to cave in Pakistan with the most advance military on earth bent on killing him...

Or all of this beard stuff is just a liar going into a few too many details...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 8, 2007)

Maybe he had an aide stop at one of the new Walmarts in the hills there and pick him up some "Just For Men"?   Personally, I'm surprise The King remembered who he was.  Musta been briefed before hand.

Hey, isn't there an election coming up soon?  Weren't there rumblings abut this time last year too?  You don't suppose there's a connection do ya?

*BOO*

Booga Booga.

Now remember, Vote Republican so the mean nasty man stays away, and don't look too closely at those vote creating I mean counting machines.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2007)

Apparently, some people think the video is a fake...

http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/100907BinLaden.htm



> The newly released Osama Bin Laden video is a an iron clad forgery, and not even a good one at that. All references to current events made by the figure said to be Bin Laden occur at a point in the video where the picture freezes and only audio is present. Bin Laden also presents a pre recorded martyrdom video of one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, Waleed al Shehri, who was reported by the BBC as still alive and well in Saudi Arabia.





> Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
> 
> The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 10, 2007)

FINALLY ... Bin-Laden...the Sequel! Yay!  


oh brother... would it give a clue as to where the bastard is?


----------



## grydth (Sep 10, 2007)

Life living in remote Pakistani caves pursued by Predators seems to be rejuvenating Oslima.... maybe there are spas unknown to infidels in some of them. 

It would be so nice to see the xxx fry tomorrow....


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2007)

grydth said:


> Life living in remote Pakistani caves pursued by Predators seems to be rejuvenating Oslima.... maybe there are spas unknown to infidels in some of them.
> 
> It would be so nice to see the xxx fry tomorrow....


 
How do we really know that UBL is alive?


----------



## grydth (Sep 10, 2007)

It seems that al-Qaeda leaders make reference to current events to prove their videos are not old or pre-recorded.

The wider point, though, I think is valid - sad how little we do seem to know about them with reasonable certainty or detail.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2007)

hmmm, this is a sad anonymous comment...



> Honestly, to see this post on 9-11 is just unreal. There are such things as stupid questions, and this is one of the best examples. Or are we in for a conspiracy theory?


 
I ask a question and that's what I get in response from somebody.  I think they are missing a crucial point, but then again some people just accept everything they are told without reservation.

Honestly, aren't you just a little suspicious of the timing and circumstances surrounding this tape?  Here it is, 9/11, and how convenient is it for us to see this man's face?

At the very least, this kind of fear mongering and exploitation is really really sad.

I don't think the tape is real.  I think that some of it our all it is a forgery.  I think the powers that be are exploiting 9/11 *again*, in order to make people do what they want.

If anybody thinks thats insulting, imagine how I feel?  I used to have a lot of pride in my country.  Now I'm just afraid, but it's not UBL that makes me afraid.  Its *our* leaders.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 11, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> hmmm, this is a sad anonymous comment...Honestly, aren't you just a little suspicious of the timing and circumstances surrounding this tape?  Here it is, 9/11, and how convenient is it for us to see this man's face?



Uh, yeah. He wants to rub it in our face about the attacks and his war against us and so he should release it at any other time other than the anniversery of 9-11.


----------



## grydth (Sep 11, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> hmmm, this is a sad anonymous comment...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your questions and points are reasonable, and deserve more than slagging. But consider...

I do think the tape is real.

If the tape in question were fake...al-Qaeda has proven access to multiple and varied media outlets - So where are the enraged denials of infidel forgery? Bush has unlimited enemies - everywhere - so where's the scientific proof?

It makes (insane) sense for UBL to exploit 9/11... it was his major murderous success. The anniversary is a great time to remind the Great Satan that nobody is safe. 

I am also aware of the allegations that Bush has used UBL for election advantage - but there's no major American election this November.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 11, 2007)

That's a good (and balanced) point. *Grydth*.

I really hope that I don't upset anyone when I say that, from historical experience,  I am more than ready to believe that a major political figure will use any means to strengthen his/her hold on power (invade Iraq, 're-take' the Falklands, permit the destruction of cities, invent 'straw-man' enemies, perpetrate self-inflicted 'wounds' et al to incite desired public responses).  

It is, however, true that in the case of something like the destruction of the WTC and its negative repercussions on the 'terrorist' cause, you would think that those 'falsely' accused of it would strongly protest through the channels available to them if Western Media Manipulation (TM) was being used to further undermine them.

It is true that in those areas of the world that support the Islamic Cause (apologies to 'proper' Islamics for that phrase) then defiant rhetoric can win points.  But fanatical emotions do not deflect nuclear strikes (or 'lesser 'military responses) so I cannot see that bona fide countries with something to lose would be all that pleased to be associated with acts that could draw such adverse attention.

After all, as an example, Iran has huffed and puffed recently but nothing more.  Why?  Because not so long ago they saw the enemy that they had fought unsuccessfully for so long be militarily expunged in very short order.  Do they want to invite the same (potential nuclear deterrent or no)?

Anyhow, I'm rambling as I ever do on such complicated issues .

My personal opinion is that I simply don't know.  I can construct logical arguments for both sides of a story here but I have no evidence for either.  My gut tells me that there is no 'War on terror' but rather a shabbier 'War for Resources and Control'.  It's happened before and it (may) happen again.  The only truth is that those who have nothing to gain will be the ones to pay the price (that's my Grandfathers tuppence worth for you ).


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> Uh, yeah. He wants to rub it in our face about the attacks and his war against us and so he should release it at any other time other than the anniversery of 9-11.


 
Here's a the little logical twist in the official line that no one ever seems to think about.  9/11 was probably the very worst thing that ever happened to Al-Qaeda.  Most of their major operations have been disrupted.  Most of their membership killed.  And all of their money is all but gone.  That is if you listen to what the media is telling us about Al-Qaeda out of one side of their mouth.  (It kinda makes one wonder why we should continue to be so afraid of them, but that's another story)

What good is it really going to do?  Most likely its just going to expose him and kick a hornets nest the size of the giza pyramid.  And I don't think it's too inspiring for the young radical to watch these folks get hunted down by any means neccessary.

UBL doesn't have anything to gain and everything to lose by such a venture...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2007)

grydth said:


> If the tape in question were fake...al-Qaeda has proven access to multiple and varied media outlets - So where are the enraged denials of infidel forgery? Bush has unlimited enemies - everywhere - so where's the scientific proof?


 
A couple of things that revolve around the axiom "the absence of evidence isn't evidence of its absense."

1.  The large media outlets are fairly controlled when it comes to the information they receive and broadcast.  Most don't even have newsrooms and most have cut staff down to the "talking head" level.  It's gotten so bad that these outlets often just report the press releases given to them by our government.

Is it so surprising that we don't hear anything like that from them?

2.  Consider the fact that our media outlets are so large and pervasive that they influence opinion on a global level.  You can catch CNN, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, Fox in any of these Arab countries...and now, even large Arab outfits like Al-jazeera are being gobbled up by these media conglomerates.  So, maybe we don't see any real Arabic analysis of whats going on because they are receiving information exactly like we do.  And information is being controlled on a large scale exactly like it is over here.

My guess is that the degree of skepticism is far greater then it is over here in regards to this matter...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 11, 2007)

If believing that you are safe because the whole War/Terrorism threat is a sham manufactured by the gvt. helps you sleep at night, I guess we all cope in different ways. Thats what all this conspiracy crap is really about. Im safe because the "threat" is all some made up hoax, my family and friends are all gonna be OK. 

Its a mantra.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2007)

And here's the last thing I'm going to say about this issue tonight...

I want everyone to consider the fact that UBL and Al-Qaeda started with CIA backing.  In fact, the CIA was visiting UBL in a hospital in Dubai in August of 2001.

The CIA has a long history of supporting and creating groups like this.  It's a strategy that was developed by the British and is widely used by American Intelligence Agencies.  Low Intensity Conflict is an umbrella that can comprise many different strategies.  However, a famous one is to set up a group that does your dirty work with the same name as a group that you are trying to malign.  

A good example of what I'm talking about was described by British General Frank Kitson.  He published a manual on the use of countergangs, psuedo-gangs, and psuedo-operations as a counter insurgency strategy.  (This, IMHO, has some pretty dark implications for what is probably really happening in Iraq BTW).  

Anyway, why would it surprise anyone that the CIA, with such intimate knowledge of Al-Qaeda, would create a counter Al-Qaeda that would drag the real Al-Qaeda's name through the mud?  And then, when you control your own Al-Qaeda, why would it be surprising to use this one in a propaganda campaign against your own people?

This link shows that our military establishment takes such tactics very seriously.  

The bottom line is that none of this is out of the question...and that is not a pleasant thought.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If believing that you are safe because the whole War/Terrorism threat is a sham manufactured by the gvt. helps you sleep at night, I guess we all cope in different ways. Thats what all this conspiracy crap is really about. Im safe because the "threat" is all some made up hoax, my family and friends are all gonna be OK.
> 
> Its a mantra.


 
I don't think I'm being unreasonable, but I could be wrong.  And anyway, this sentiment goes the other way too.  People want to believe the official line because the alternative is pretty darn terrible.

The reality is that whether I'm right or wrong, there are still some major unpleasent issues along both trains of thought.  Either way, I don't think we are just going to be okay.

Thinking about this is certainly not a recipe for good sleep.  Good night all...


----------



## grydth (Sep 11, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> A couple of things that revolve around the axiom "the absence of evidence isn't evidence of its absense."
> 
> 1.  The large media outlets are fairly controlled when it comes to the information they receive and broadcast.  Most don't even have newsrooms and most have cut staff down to the "talking head" level.  It's gotten so bad that these outlets often just report the press releases given to them by our government.
> 
> ...



I don't know whose axiom that is, but it is not mine. I analyze the evidence we have, both direct and circumstantial... and then note the lack on any counterclaim whatsoever by the originator or anti-Bush parties.

This video, on its face, has no indicia of being a forgery... (not, say, like the recent French report showing unfired rounds as being used bullets.)  

Now, I think it very clear that al-Qaeda has been able to get its messages into the marketplace of ideas very successfully since 9/11. (In a way, I wish you were right and that fewer media outlets would assist the murderers of six years ago today. Enough sympathy for the Devil). 

Further, you cannot be seriously contending that there is any absence of critics of the Bush Administration or of the war in the media. From local screechers to the New York Times, one need exert very little effort indeed to find them in great numbers.... show me a reputable source claiming fraud here. Where is the evidence the video is a fraud? Any evidence?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2007)

Well, here is the video.  See for yourself.  What do you think would lead some people to believe that the video is faked?

Also, see post #3.


----------



## grydth (Sep 11, 2007)

Answer me who the "some people" are and "what" evidence points to this being a fake and we'll be getting somewhere.

UBL has everything to gain, and Bush everything to lose.... the video proves that, six years after 9/11,  the USA can't kill the chief psycho behind it, and it serves to rekindle the terror that was a main product of 9/11.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 12, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I want everyone to consider the fact that UBL and Al-Qaeda started with CIA backing.  In fact, the CIA was visiting UBL in a hospital in Dubai in August of 2001.



:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:

Wrong. Go ahead a prove the meeting in Dubai.

Someone :wink2: recently posted this,



> True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.



Now, in this case you would think that a _resonable_ person would open up their mind and give up their silly conspiracy theories after about the 17th time their smoking gun turned out to be a wet firecracker.

So if someone has thier big  professor expert turn out to be involved in astronomy instead of anything involved in explosives or engineering and his university's engineering department says his stuff is seriously flawed, if the article that they say proves that some of the 9-11 hijackers is corrected by the newpaper itself as being a mistake, etc, and yet they _still_ keep trying new things and more elaborate theories to explain how 9-11 could still have been done by the government...

..well they just are not willing to open their mind and admit that they were wrong, driven by hate and not as smart as they wanted everyone to think.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html



> Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
> 
> The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.



Sorry, it was July.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html



> "Now the Taliban will pay a price" vowed President George W. Bush, as American and British fighter planes unleashed missile attacks against major cities in Afghanistan. The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly "against international terrorism" has been launched, yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the "Islamic Militant Network" as part of Washington's foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 12, 2007)

Nope,

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html

I think what the last article on that page says it best.



> Copyright 2001 International Herald Tribune
> The International Herald Tribune
> 
> November 1, 2001 Thursday
> ...



And if you have the courage to challenge your beliefs, you might want to read this as well.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html

The mind of a "true believer" would say that these explinations are part of the conspiracy and just keep chugging away with more theories as to why they just can't be wrong about their central belief.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 12, 2007)

Mr. E, I hope you realize that "the mind of the true believer" swings in more then one direction.  Perhaps you have so much emotionally invested in the official line that you will grasp at any factoid to make it so.  This "reverse scientific method" is exactly the kind of psychosis the good doctor was describing and it is why I posted it in the first place.

In reality, what we have here is a report that Bin-Laden was in Dubai and several denials.  There are actually several more separate accounts of this floating around, but the same people are reported denying at the same time.  This was actually reported in the article that I posted.

So, what happened?  

Based on the long history that the CIA has developed with Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, I would say that the meeting is plausible.  Does that mean that I think this definitely happened, no.  But you MUST consider the possibility that it did.

Especially when confronted with the evidence of his past CIA links.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 12, 2007)

Other faked UBL tapes...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/29/1038386299712.html



> Paris: The latest audiotape statement attributed to Osama bin Laden is not authentic, according to a Swiss research institute.
> 
> The Lausanne-based Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, IDIAP, said it was 95 per cent certain the tape does not feature bin Laden's voice.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 12, 2007)

UBL confession faked...

http://www.rense.com/general18/ez.htm



> The White House yesterday came under pressure to give more details of the video which purports to show Osama bin Laden admitting his part in the September 11 attacks. There was growing doubt in the Muslim world about the authenticity of the film while special effects experts said computer technology made it possible to fake such a video. Unless the US gives more information about how the tape was found or provides more technological details about it, doubts are bound to linger.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> In reality, what we have here is a report that Bin-Laden was in Dubai and several denials.  There are actually several more separate accounts of this floating around, but the same people are reported denying at the same time.



No, they all come back to one source, one article by a reporter from Le Figaro who heard a rumor and printed it.

No confirmation, no reasons, no credibility.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Especially when confronted with the evidence of his past CIA links.



No, you didn't read the second link I posted.

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html

here are some interesting quotes from that page.



> It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency.
> 
> The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups], was supplemented by Saudi government money and huge funds raised from mosques, non-governmental charitable institutions and private donors throughout the Islamic world. Most of the major Gulf-based charities operating today were founded at this time to raise money or channel government funds to the Afghans, civilians and fighters. In fact, as little as 25 per cent of the monet for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states.
> Page 59, Al Qaeda: The true story of radical Islam
> Jason Burke





> But were the CIA and the Afghan Arabs in cahoots, as recent studies have suggested? One author charges: "The CIA had funded and trained the Afghan Arabs during the war". Another refers to "the central role of the CIA's Muslim mercenaries, including upwards of 2,000 mercenaries in the Afghanistan war". Both authors present these claims as axioms, but provide no real corroboration.
> 
> Other commentators have reported that bin Ladin himself was aided by the CIA. A report in the respected British newspaper The Guardian states: "In 1986 the CIA even helped him [bin Ladin] build an underground camp at Khost [Afghanistan] where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the revolutionary art of jihad"...Bin Ladin, meanwhile, had expoused anti-American positions since 1982, and thanks to the fortune derived from his family's giant construction business had little need of CIA money. In fact, the underground camp at Khost was built in 1982 by an Afghan commander, with Arab funding.
> 
> ...



There you go, indepedent authors and journalists taking apart a very common myth and key to your debate.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Other faked UBL tapes...
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/29/1038386299712.html



One group claims it is faked and we are supposed to take it's word for it? This group just can't be mistaken, the rest of the world must be? If it was so easy to figure out, why have not other, more credible sources touched it?

This type of thing has been dealt with.

http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html

read and challenge your convictions.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> UBL confession faked...
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general18/ez.htm



That article does not say the the article was faked. It talked about how it *might be* possible to fake a tape like this. The following is the only person in the article who tries to say the tape is faked.



> Riaz Durrani, a spokesman for Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, *which spearheaded pro-Taliban rallies in Pakistan*, said: "This videotape is not authentic. The Americans made it up after failing to get any evidence against Osama."



Wow! He is not someone who has an agenda, is he?

Instead of presenting things like this as if they said what you want them to say, how about opening up your mind and admiting that the latest tape of Bin Laden talking about one of the hijackers is the final nail in the coffin to the idea that the government was behind 9-11? You would not have to keep making more and more eleberate conspiracy theories if you only opened your mind to the idea that it really was a bunch of Islamic terrorists.

Here is a much better article on Bin Laden and his accepting blame for 9-11.

http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html

Of course, some might try to hide behind the idea that the "gubmint" would shut up anyone who told the real truth about tapes like this- but would that stop folks in Venuzuela and China?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> There you go, indepedent authors and journalists taking apart a very common myth and key to your debate.


 
Unfortunately, congressional testimony contradicts the above.  Check citations next time.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Unfortunately, congressional testimony contradicts the above.  Check citations next time.



Oh? You might want to give sources and exact quotes if you want to pursue that line of argument. If you do, I am certain that I can find things that shoot what you want to say down like I have so far. Much better for someone trying to protect their sense of superiority to stay non-specific. After all, after all the  effort _certain people_ have put into trying to say that they know better than everyone else about the truth, it would be a great blow to their sense of superiority to admit that they were wrong all the time. :lol:

Oh my- congress working off of flawed testimony and intelligence... what a new concept for those that want to oppose the war on terror.

:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> how about opening up your mind and admiting...


 
All of this is part and parcel of the "True Believer Syndrome."  Even the quasi-religious intonation above.

Here is something that I think needs to be said.  According to certain polls, 36% of Americans believe the the US government was either fully or partially behind some aspects of 9/11.  86% have doubts regarding the official dogma.

What we have on the internet is a very vocal minority who supports every aspect of the official dogma in exactly the same way that people who think that the government was 100% behind 9/11.  The same conspiracy psychosis is displayed on both sides.

So, here is my question to you (and anyone else who would like to answer this question) and I'm going to bring this discussion back to the UBL tapes.  What would it take for you to believe that these tapes may have been faked?  Note that this is not 100% affirmation that they are faked.  What would it take?  I'm really curious...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> Oh? You might want to give sources and exact quotes if you want to pursue that line of argument.


 
They were already posted in the articles presented.  Check them.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Here is something that I think needs to be said.  According to certain polls, 36% of Americans believe the the US government was either fully or partially behind some aspects of 9/11.  86% have doubts regarding the official dogma.



So if a majority of the population thinks that Hussein was involved in the planning of 9-11 *as a good percent polled responded* does that mean that we should treat it as fact?

:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:

So the majority still thinks that there was no plot by thge government. If you try to say that we should follow the majority, you are still considered outside the norm.

If we deal with the facts and ignore the people that voted that Iraq was involved in 9-11, you are still wrong.

No appeal to authority to be found in your argument.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> They were already posted in the articles presented.  Check them.



Go ahead and make it real easy for me and give the exact quotes, etc. I will be back in about 12 hours to show how they are wrong.

After all... there was testimony before congress to say that there was *no link* between tabacco and cancer.

So if you want to say that someone testified before congress saying that Iraqi soldiers took babies off of life support that it *is proof* that it happened...... well you have to deal with all the objective sources saying that it was a bit of a agenda foisted on congress.

:lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:


----------



## OUMoose (Sep 13, 2007)

After reading the thread (and the pixelated poo-slinging going on), I am one of the "wackos" that believes the tape is a fake.

For all the intellectuals who are much better with facts and dates than I care to be at the moment, why did the tape get played on CNN, or even mentioned?  Would it not be in the best interests of the government, if it were real, to keep it so under wraps that anyone coming out saying "Hey, I've got a new tape" would be looked at like a looney since we have thing so well under control with our "surge"?  (I know that was a runon, but *shrug*)  You're trying to tell me the "most powerful nation in the world" can't squelch one little tape?  Or, was is it in their interests to actually _promote_ this tape, to provide more fuel for the terrorism-phobic populous and keep our brave men and women in harms way?  Or, what if it was made up, to drum up more support for the most disliked president in this history of the USA?

I dunno.  :idunno:  There's alot of what-ifs there, and I know it's against governmental policy to "think", but I can't help it.


----------



## grydth (Sep 13, 2007)

OUMoose said:


> After reading the thread (and the pixelated poo-slinging going on), I am one of the "wackos" that believes the tape is a fake.
> 
> For all the intellectuals who are much better with facts and dates than I care to be at the moment, why did the tape get played on CNN, or even mentioned?  Would it not be in the best interests of the government, if it were real, to keep it so under wraps that anyone coming out saying "Hey, I've got a new tape" would be looked at like a looney since we have thing so well under control with our "surge"?  (I know that was a runon, but *shrug*)  You're trying to tell me the "most powerful nation in the world" can't squelch one little tape?  Or, was is it in their interests to actually _promote_ this tape, to provide more fuel for the terrorism-phobic populous and keep our brave men and women in harms way?  Or, what if it was made up, to drum up more support for the most disliked president in this history of the USA?
> 
> I dunno.  :idunno:  There's alot of what-ifs there, and I know it's against governmental policy to "think", but I can't help it.



I don't think a simple belief one way or the other about the authenticity of this al-Qaeda tape makes somebody a "wacko".... in fact, you highlight a major problem in our society and on this forum. We can't reasonably differ anymore with each other - now, if you disagree with anyone they say you are insane, illiterate or a traitor.

No, I do not think our government can control the world media, most especially not the Internet. We can't control Iraq, for heaven's sake. The so called surge of troops in Iraq has no connection to any ability to control world media outlets. The Chinese, too, are learning the Internet is hard to tame.

Various media outlets have played authentic al-Qaeda tapes for years. Some here showed the Virginia Tech murderer's sick manifesto. I have no idea why the media chooses to assist killers. None of those were kept from publication - though I wish they could have been.

You think the tape helps Bush? I think it highlights his failures.

One of us must be crazy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 13, 2007)

I happened to find this on Wiki today and I think it provides a pretty good videography of UBL tapes.  I'm not sure if its all of them, but I think its most of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden

I found this part interesting...



> On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be not only inaccurate, but also manipulative saying "_At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic_" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original Arabic. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "_The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it_."[7]


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 14, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I happened to find this on Wiki today



Wiki is not accepted as a good source anymore. If you use it for most serious uses, you have to check with the facts independent of wiki.

There is link to the German article, but my German is not up to figuring out if it is just another whacky internet conspiracy theory site or something more serious.

Here is a better source for Bin Laden accepting blame for 9-11. They give page numbers, references and everything!

http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html


----------



## Carol (Sep 14, 2007)

Devout Wahhabis see the trimming of beards and the dying of hair as a violation of Islamic law.

So...here is a broadcast of Bin Ladin with dyed, trimmed hair....and wearing clerical robes.

It could be psycholocial warfare by "our side".  But...Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are not crying foul.  There is no outrage over the appearance of Bin Laden.  No accusations of sacrilege or foul play.

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, naturally they like the strong horse."  Osama Bin Laden, late 2001.

While not part of Wahhabiism, there is a Sunni school of thought that permits use of hair dye for male jihadist warriors, the logic being a younger, stronger appearance is more intimidating to the enemy. 

Is this Bin Laden (or his sympathizers), still trying to prove that he's a strong horse?  While the logic isn't strong, its the option that makes the most sense to me.

I don't know if the tape is real or not, but if it is fake, I don't think it was faked by us.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 14, 2007)

grydth said:


> I don't think a simple belief one way or the other about the authenticity of this al-Qaeda tape makes somebody a "wacko".... in fact, you highlight a major problem in our society and on this forum. We can't reasonably differ anymore with each other - now, if you disagree with anyone they say you are insane, illiterate or a traitor.


 
grydth, this sort of thing doesn't go both ways when it comes to this subject.  The words "conspiracy theory" are loaded so that they have become a jerjorative for all of that.  The end result is that it stifles opinion.  I've been turning it around, so to speak, in this thread, because if one side can misapply logic and psychology on other people for asking questions, the same sort of twisted approach can land those very labels back on their source by their very definition.

It would be much nicer to discuss these questions on their merits without the mean spirited perjorative applied to anyone, whether in public or private formats.

I respect your opinon and I like your delivery and I hope that in my replies to you, I've been able to convey a sense of my misgivings regarding these tapes.

For others, I think they need a good lesson in rhetoric and civility.  It's a miracle this thread hasn't turned into a train wreck and its only because I'm not going to escalate it any further.


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 14, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> It could be psycholocial warfare by "our side".  But...Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are not crying foul.  There is no outrage over the appearance of Bin Laden.  No accusations of sacrilege or foul play.



Kind of telling that people in the Middle East seem to have little trouble with believing this is actually him, eh? There are more people in the West that are saying this is a faked tape than people from that part of the world.



Carol Kaur said:


> While not part of Wahhabiism, there is a Sunni school of thought that permits use of hair dye for male jihadist warriors, the logic being a younger, stronger appearance is more intimidating to the enemy.



It is also fairly common in that part of the world with people seeking power.

it just does not make sense to think that if you were trying to fool the American people you would make this fundemental type of change. If your target audience for a scam was people that did not know much about how people in that part of the world thought, you would want to cater to the way they thought as much as possible. Your last line is right on- this may have been doctored, but not by anyone in the West. I think a lot was left out so that the West's intelligence agencies could not gain too much information about the location, state of his health and so on.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 14, 2007)

If its fake, it could just as easily be faked by AlQuda (sp?) as anybody else. The tendency to conclude its a US plot out of hand says more about the conspiracy theorist than it does about the tape itself IMO.

Again, the gvt can blow up the WTC under our noses, but couldnt make a fake OBL beard that matches?? Wingnuts.


----------



## Carol (Sep 16, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> it just does not make sense to think that if you were trying to fool the American people you would make this fundemental type of change. If your target audience for a scam was people that did not know much about how people in that part of the world thought, you would want to cater to the way they thought as much as possible. Your last line is right on- this may have been doctored, but not by anyone in the West. I think a lot was left out so that the West's intelligence agencies could not gain too much information about the location, state of his health and so on.



Perhaps he Bin Laden is looking to appear stronger to his allies...


----------

