Skip to comments.
Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video - the German Press Investigates
Action Report Online ^
| 12/23/2002
| Craig Morris
Posted on 01/11/2002 5:25:08 AM PST by Demidog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 next last
To: Demidog
Take me off of your paranoid thread bump list! This is pure bs propaganda right from the backers of OBL in the middle east!
Send this paranoid bs to your fellow tin hat - hate America/GW buddies!
To: Grampa Dave
Uhh...This thread has nothing to do with "America Haters" as far as I can tell and isn't paranoid.
82
posted on
01/11/2002 9:35:02 AM PST
by
Demidog
Comment #83 Removed by Moderator
To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
"Thank you, Osama"You are welcome, "Oh Brown Butt of the Camel".
If you believe that the government is alwys good/right and it never lies, spins, exaggerates, misleads, coerces, punishes and
that whom ever is on the other side of the argument is always wrong/bad, lying, criminal, terrorist, criminal, dangerous,
then enough said.
84
posted on
01/11/2002 10:13:27 AM PST
by
tberry
To: Demidog
Doesn't prove a d*mn thing except that the Germans have an axe to grind. There's a surprise.
85
posted on
01/11/2002 10:23:37 AM PST
by
Illbay
To: Demidog
You'll need to back up that assertion with some evidence for it to stand Oh, that's easy. From your post Number 10: "What they prove is that the government is lying." You claim that German news articles constitute proof that the government is lying, ergo you take what these German news sources say as Gospel since you offer up their word as proof of anything, which is the point of my original post to you.
Okay, now that we've gone around in a circle, our conversation has come to an end.
86
posted on
01/11/2002 10:29:06 AM PST
by
alnick
To: discostu
Which does bring into question just how much this was a conspiracy involving lots of members of the Bush Cabinet and how much it was just a few business leaders getting stupid. I hope you don't hold your breath while you wait for definitive answers about Enron OR the truth of the 'Osama tape'. They're playing pro-league dodge ball, where the rules can change in the middle of a play.
My point is, that if you're lied to once, by someone ... and then twice ... and then again. How long will it be before you begin to doubt that someone?
To: Ridin' Shotgun
Well if I feel like I've been lied to for invalid reasons (there are good reasons to lie, especially for the government, very especially for a goverment at war, scary to admit but true, I don't want telling me the truth to cost soldiers their lives) just the once. So far I don't feel lied to in any of the situations that have been outlined.
88
posted on
01/11/2002 10:52:42 AM PST
by
discostu
To: Demidog
[George] Bush Sr. probably knows any number of them himself. Yeah, but they're probably all tied up, as it were, working on the War on Terror's Rock the Mideast effort.
89
posted on
01/11/2002 11:03:49 AM PST
by
Askel5
Comment #90 Removed by Moderator
To: discostu
If a lie
results in the death of one military man ... or in the death of one innocent civilian, would you still support that lie? What if that 'lie' precipitated an 'undeclared' (and therefore unlawful) war? Would you still support the lie because someone attacked us and you were too angry and impatient to ask for a lawful declaration based on overwhelming evidence
before launching that war?
Reminds me of the old joke about the old bull and the young bull standing on a ridge looking down on a pasture full of young heifers. The young bull nudges the old bull and says 'lets run down and get one'. The old bull looks disgusted and says 'how about if we walk down and get 'em all '.
In other words, I don't trust this rush to judgement, because there are possible other reasons for attacking Afghanistan, such as control of caspian oil and pipelines that were already in the planning in 1996, but were being rejected by the current Afghan overlords.
To: Buckhead
... who dispute the probative value of the bin Laden video and believe 9/11 was the work of the Mossad are full of sh*t, to the point of psychosis. Can't be sure, but I think you're the first one (and possibly the ONLY one to bring up the subject of 'mossad' here. Typical. Guess you think there are only two types who 'couldadoneit'. I don't. I think there are probably dozens of types that might want to bring America to her knees.
So many people seem to actually FEAR information these days. I wonder why.
To: Demidog; Sabertooth
What they prove is that the government is lying. They haven't proved that. Why should we believe a socialist German TV show and its Saudi translator? If anything, they are the ones who are being manipulative. Their hairsplitting over a couple of words doesn't change the fact that Bin Laden's terrorists committed the heinous crime of September 11!
To: Victoria Delsoul
Why should we believe a socialist German TV show and its Saudi translator? ... Their hairsplitting over a couple of words doesn't change the fact that Bin Laden's terrorists committed the heinous crime of September 11! Excuse me for intruding on a private conversation, but let me ask you, did you, or did you not believe that Bin Laden was guilty prior to seeing the video that was admittedly edited by the socialist government of the United States and its hired translators?
Sorry, I don't mean to split hairs too, but since you brought it up, even the hair on his beard doesn't match up (based on other available photos).
To: Ridin' Shotgun
Maybe you should read this.
Link.
Comment #96 Removed by Moderator
To: Demidog
"'In advance' is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original."
At another point, the White House translation reads: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." Dr. Murad Alami:
"'Previous' is never said. The subsequent statement that this event would take place on that day cannot be heard in the original Arabic version."
Notice, though, that in either case, they quibbled about what it didn't, in part, say, as though that were exculpative, but never did go on to reveal what it actually did say. The conclusion? There were differences in translation, but not not any that were exculpative. Something along these lines:
"The U.S. said that bin Ladin said, "I ate the chocolate on a previous occasion" but he did not say "previous"."
Things are left like this in the hopes that people will assume that bin Ladin didn't eat any chocolate at all. In actuality, the gist of the statement was
"I ate the chocolate on an occasion before now."
97
posted on
01/11/2002 12:23:58 PM PST
by
aruanan
To: Buckhead
And I own the bridge. LOL~
To: Victoria Delsoul
Are you seriously suggesting that Clinton blew up the trade center?
To: Demidog
Can the Arabs ever stop lying? NO. All they do is LIE,LIE,LIE!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson