Tuesday, November 02, 2004


Earlier I posted what I believed was a complete English-language transcript of bin Laden's recent remarks as made available by The New York Times. However, I see now that OBL's speech was much longer and more detailed than what the Times provided (I believe that the Times only provided a transcript of approximately one minute of footage that al-Jazeera actually aired, rather than the entire contents).

Here then, direct from al-Jazeera, is the complete text.

Again, I urge everyone to read it. The greatest tragedy of September the 11th is the failure of our nation to have an intelligent discussion about its origins. That discussion ought to begin with an assessment of the perpetrator's own justification.


Trickish Knave said...

What? The Times left something out? Say it isn't so! I actually deleted a derrogatory comment about the NYT but I am really trying not stoop to that level of namecalling. Alhtough my comment about it being the Elitist bible was pretty damning. Whoops...

I can't really give The Times too much crap for being clearly against our president when my hometown paper, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette (for crying out loud the work "Democrat" is in the name so it should be obvious who they side with), is so partisan I think they require a voter registration card attached to the mailbox before delivery.

Oh well, I hope that the tape of OBL will be dismissed as dribble from an insane asshole and that America will still continue to vote their hearts.

Andy said...

Well, it is true that the editorial board of The New York Times has endorsed Kerry and that in general they have been disparaging of the Bush administration. Regular columnists include lefty idols Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd as well as Bob Herbert; they are balanced by right-wing nutcases David Brooks and William Safire and centrists Thomas Friedman (well, he's a hawk, at least) and Nicholas Kristof, who probably counts in most people's eyes as a liberal but has frequently written with more objectivity than I'd like about Bush.

However, in the interest of determining whether the coverage in the paper is biased one way or another, they recently created an independent, limited-term non-renewable position of Public Editor, for which they hired Daniel Okrent. The idea was that he would analyze coverage for a period of six months, with no possibility of his contract being renewed, therefore eliminating any desire on his part to curry favor with the paper by going easy on them or risk their displeasure by ruffling feathers. The results of his independent investigation indicated that the Times coverage is, in fact, quite balanced.

Also, having read both versions of the bin Laden transcript, I don't personally feel that what the NY Times presented was misleading by virture of its being abridged; furthermore, they provided a translation of the portion of the video that was actually broadcast by al Jazeera. Why they chose to do this rather than publish the full transcript is beyond me, but I don't think there was any real motivation behind it one way or another.

And yes, bin Laden is an asshole, but I still think Bush has done our nation and the world an enormous disservice by describing al Qaeda as an organization of cartoon like "evildoers." They may be evil, but they have real motivations, not just chaos and terror. They have goals, and it's not the elimination of "freedom" in America. Their methods are despicable and criminal, but the point has to be made that some of bin Laden's observations have merit, or are, at the very least, worth of a serious national debate. Had such a discussion taken place, I doubt very much we would have gone into Iraq because Americans would have understood that, far from being a blow against al Qaeda, the invasion only exacerbated the negative image the Arab world has of us and has, in their eyes, vindicated bin Laden.

We're fighing the wrong war, people.

Trickish Knave said...

I agree that al-queda has real motivations also. It just so happens they use chaos and terror to further their goals. How else can you explain the Islamic extremists who killed those children in Russia while they were at school? They were not Al-queda, however, they both belong to the same fanatical cause, one of which is the destruction of America.

It is a shame that not everyone can see what is really going on over there. The media and reporters know that images and success stories will not sell and that it is fashionable to hate America. So people whould believe that this is the "wrong war at the wrong time".

I do agree that we should have taken care of OBL before heading to Iraq but the war in Iraq was necessary on so many levels if not for ousting that despotic asshole then at least to give people over there a chance to live without fear from their own ruler who would rather see his people starve then to lift a finger to help them. Serioiusly, Andy, what do you think OBL's other motiviations are? Peace in the Middle East? Actually, it probably is and he will get peace, in his mind, when all the infidels are destroyed.

The Times can hire all the people they want and it won't change the fact that they stand, very baltantly, on Kerry's side. I have no prolbem with that as there are other sources that stand in opposition. Freedom of speach and all that. I just hope that people look at other sources to get a clear picture and try to meddle through the crap themselves instead of letting someone dictate a hidden agenda as fact. I think Michael Moore is an assclown but I have watched every movie he has put out because I want to know the schemes the liberal leftists are presenting as fact. I find my own sources, as I believe you do, to base my opnion of something on well-researched data and not just take the opinion of someone and make it my own as I hop up onto the wagon. Aloha!