Thoughts on new bin-Laden video
"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/world/08hayden.html?ex=1346990400&en=74d799497989b98d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
1) Any of you ever toy with the idea that the CIA manufactures these bin-Laden videos? They're released at such crucial times--preelections for example--and bin-Laden seems to use the very same language that we dangerous American liberals use.
2) Why is it that CIA Director Hayden's address is more terrifying than bin-Laden's?
3) Why does the Times jump midarticle from bin-Laden video to CIA extreme rendition and interrogation?
8 comments:
what do you mean 'manufactured' by the CIA? that the CIA merely releases the tapes when it is convenient for the Bush administration, or that they actually create the content?
Manipulate the content.
For one, see this PBS Online News Hour segment re the Dec. 13, 2001 bin Laden tape: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/video_12-13a.html.
Notice Rumsfeld's two cents at the end.
And here's the tape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs
Notice the tape is fake.
I'm not sure what to believe, of course, but I do find it hard to believe anything the CIA and the administration say--especially in light of the administration's announcement yesterday that Al Qaeda is "virtually impotent" (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/09/bin.laden.tape/index.html).
That came a day after the CIA basically said Al Qaeda is poised to strike. No doubt someone's intent is to mislead.
interesting youtube video, but just bc there is one fairly certifiable fake doesn't mean they all are. i'd like to know more about how these various tapes have become available.
some of the internal disagreement re: al quaeda's potential to strike might reflect the extreme, and well-documented, lack of collaboration between various agencies and departments, despite administration efforts to make collaboration more stream-lined. as is usually the case, there isn't enough evidence yet for me to go one way or the other. in the one minute that i have seen of this most recent tape, it certainly does look like bin laden.
i see what you're saying though. i agree what i've read bin laden says about the current conflict in that we're only making it worse by staying. all that says, though, is that he and i both disagree with how the bush administration is handling the war. maybe the american public is stupid enough to knee-jerk their opinion away from whatever bin laden says and go with the president's viewpoint. this comes on the heels of a new bbc poll in iraq showing that the overwhelming majority of surveyed iraqis feel that things are now worse, six months after bush's much-touted "surge." i'm not sure which cities/provinces were polled, but bbc just states that the poll was conducted 'across iraq.'
I'm not ready to believe one thing or the other either. I do think it's very interesting that Rumsfeld comments on the Sept. 11th tape, making the case against bin-Laden, when he surely must know the speaker in the tape isn't bin-Laden. (Note that after that tape was released, al-Jazeera released an audio clip of presumably bin-Laden denying credit for Sept. 11.)
Also, see the preelection 2004 video in which bin-Laden references Florida election rigging and Bush continuing to read at the elementary school just after the attacks, apparently giving the terrorists needed time to finish the attacks. It sounds like bin-Laden had just watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" or something.
one thing we should keep in mind is that the Bush administration is not the only one with an agenda for the Middle East, and that they may very well have been duped in the same way that some claim they have duped the American people and the rest of the world.
also, i wonder if anyone has done a speech analysis of the different Bin Laden tapes to see if his accent or intonations are consistent across the videos and audio tapes.
Agreed that bin-Laden has a stake in the Middle East, but Rumsfeld's comments in light of the fake video is further proof that Rumsfeld (and the admin) was duping us, not being duped. It's impossible that Rumsfeld wouldn't know what bin-Laden looked like. Since he did know it wasn't bin-Laden, then he knew the video was a fake. This is the dilemma for me--I know the first one was a fake, and I know the admin sold it to us as a fake, so I doubt the authenticity of the later videos bc I can't trust the admin, but there's no way to be sure.
(But now the admin and conservative pundits say, oh forget about bin-Laden, he's small potatoes. So when should I believe them and when shouldn't I?)
another video of bin laden has been released, in which he calls for all young muslim men to take up arms. this makes me seriously doubt that the US is behind all these videos. claims that the bush admin would release these tapes just to keep the american public scared, or committed to iraq, or for whatever reason are off-base.
from the summary in the article, this video's message is directed at motivating would-be jihadists, among the typical claims of US arrogance, foolishness, and bloodlust. why on earth would our gov't release a propaganda video that would only motivate people to attack us and our interests? if successful, as it probably will be given the fervent acceptance of bin laden in much of the arab world, the fruits of this video would yield murders of americans around the world. that is a goal that i doubt anyone, with the exception of radical islamists and similar groups, truly want, and one that our gov't couldn't benefit from, especially given the present level of public dissent with the wars. more deaths aren't going to sway public opinion towards the wars.
staging fake disasters or deaths of americans, as the kennedy admin considered in order to invade cuba (and described here at 0:30) is one thing, but actually going through with a MASSIVE fake propaganda campaign with few, if any, obvious benefits is completely different. granted, the bush administration is often impractical and misguided, but i don't think that they're that oblivious.
Yes but we've also noted before that starting the Iraq war would create killers of Americans around the world too, and that didn't stop the administration. Another war with Iran would yield more killers of Americans as well, yet the administration hopes to start one.
I don't think the well being of Americans is on this administration's radar, which is not the same thing as saying the administration hopes for American casualties. I believe the administration wants to escalate tensions in the Middle East, and I think scaring Americans into staying there is part of its strategy. Whether this video is an example of that or not I can't say.
Post a Comment