Bin Laden speaks
- Thread starter mears
- Start date
Bob_the_lost said:
How in the world you arrive at the idea planning it was simple is beyond me. But to then actually execute it is even more impressive.
And when we also consider the man's wealth and nous, it really is odd he can only communicate with the world through dodgy quality videos. And he only seems to communicate with the world when the timing is convenient for the anglo-american elites.
London_Calling said:
I don't go to the bbc to get my news mate, i go there to analyse how they present it. I like to see propaganda in action. In this example they have converted the meaning of the word 'embrace' into the meaning the word 'convert' has.
It's the most appalling journalism, yet we must remember how preeminent the organisation is with the public, and that it is the mouthpiece of the establishment. Not to be ignored i feel. Rather, it should be exposed.
editor said:
No, it's not what i'm saying, and this is where your reading skills let you down so badly. You read something sloppily, add your interpretation to it, then re-present it as something new. You do this so frequently you really ought to learn how to read more carefully, and also to avoid colouring the text you read with your own ideas and interpretations.
I was saying how odd it all is, and that the scenario you have presented to me is more than possible.
Anyone interested in the disseminating of propaganda will enjoy this article on the video from yahoo.
Interestingly it attributes obl to saying "Join us, or we'll kill you", even though obl did not say that. It does however parallel rather bush's maxim 'either you're with us or you're not'. The men have similar minds, or do they...?
The article says that obl ''ridiculed President Bush on Iraq, saying events there have gotten "out of control" and comparing the American leader to "one who plows and sows the sea: He harvests nothing but failure."
Well, he ain't wrong there!
And then there's this:
"The question everyone was asking is, is he dead or alive?" Caprioli said. "Now we have proof that he's alive, surprising a lot of experts who thought he was dead."
Ahh, how easily proof is reached. And who is the 'everyone'? Did anyone think obl was dead?
And the article mentions the importance of the timing in the release of the video, but does not mention that it coincides with the apec meeting in australia!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_video
Interestingly it attributes obl to saying "Join us, or we'll kill you", even though obl did not say that. It does however parallel rather bush's maxim 'either you're with us or you're not'. The men have similar minds, or do they...?
The article says that obl ''ridiculed President Bush on Iraq, saying events there have gotten "out of control" and comparing the American leader to "one who plows and sows the sea: He harvests nothing but failure."
Well, he ain't wrong there!
And then there's this:
"The question everyone was asking is, is he dead or alive?" Caprioli said. "Now we have proof that he's alive, surprising a lot of experts who thought he was dead."
Ahh, how easily proof is reached. And who is the 'everyone'? Did anyone think obl was dead?
And the article mentions the importance of the timing in the release of the video, but does not mention that it coincides with the apec meeting in australia!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_video
Osama Bin Laden is now a Marxist Leninist with his discourse on the history of capitalist exploitation. This is stuff is priceless.
``This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system,'' he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6906152,00.html
``This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves before from the slavery of monks, kings and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system,'' he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6906152,00.html
mears said:
From your link mears:
"His trimmed beard is shorter than in his last video, in 2004, and is fully black - apparently dyed, since in past videos it was mostly gray. He speaks softly, as he usually does, and has dark bags under his eyes, but his appearance dispelled rumors that he had died."
Well, that would concur with the french expert i quoted above, but hang on, from the same article in the guardian, a bit earlier:
"American officials said the U.S. government had obtained a copy even though the video had not been posted yet by al-Qaida - and intelligence agencies were studying the video to determine whether it was authentic and to look for clues about bin Laden's health."
So, is it obl, or is it not obl?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Is it Bin Laden - ok, the images aren't clear but if i were to put money on it, id guess not. 'Old' Bin Laden on the left, 'new' Bin Laden on the right
Shame the media haven't bothered to attempt one ounce of critical analysis as there is clearly room for question....
Shame the media haven't bothered to attempt one ounce of critical analysis as there is clearly room for question....
Barking_Mad said:
And as we know though, the anglo-american media are really nothing much more than mouthpieces of the establishment.
If obl is dead, and this is more than a likely situation, then who is on these dodgy videos, and why are we being told he is obl?
Can't this wealthy individual do better than dodgy videos where most of the footage is in fact not even moving, but rather reduced to audio?
Can't the man who was supposedly behind the most impressive attacks against the heart of the most impressive empire do better than this when he wishes to communicate with the world? Is modern day technology out of his reach?
Questions our wonderful 'free' media ought to be asking, which raises the final question: why aren't they asking these questions?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
mears said:
So says the man who takes his understanding of Marx and Lenin from a Funk and Wagnalls encyclopedia.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
An absurd notion.mears said:
Why bother with this 8th grade simplicity?
OBL is a has-been who has little influence on the world stage anymore. For gods sakes, the dude has to produce serial videos to get his bleedin' word out. No one gives a crap about him and his cronies.
I put Bush and OBL in the same class, has-been losers.
I put Bush and OBL in the same class, has-been losers.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
London_Calling said:And so the discussion ends early
Oh . . .
Ah yes, I forgot your habit of falling back on the "he was wude to po' ickle me" gambit to avoid having to support your claims.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
warren said:
Never?
That'll be news to those CIA officers who funnelled US financial backing (alongside the ibn Saud and their hangers-on) to the Mujahideen (and especially to ObL and his fellow "Arab Afghanis") during and after the Soviet-Afghan war.
Never say never, pencil-neck.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
warren said:
Leaving aside CIa funding of Bin Laden, my original point was that OBL is funded still by powerful capitalist interests from the Bin Laden family--if you cannot even understand a few lines on an internet forum, maybe you should stick to Youtube/Janet & John as your research sources...
"So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.
That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.
Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.
And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.
And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.
Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.
As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
from: Full Transcript - http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403
Bin Ladin proves himself very perceptive in his video. Interesting how he recognises the 'acting as one team', how america have capitalised on his image and threat for their capitalist purposes. He goes on further to identify the only real losers of this 'game'. Us.
Bin Ladin is NOT Goldstein. I think he addresses this above.
I wonder if any significance to the reference to the lectures at Royal Institute of International Affairs other than he has got broadband now?
That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.
Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.
And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.
And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.
Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.
As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
from: Full Transcript - http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403
Bin Ladin proves himself very perceptive in his video. Interesting how he recognises the 'acting as one team', how america have capitalised on his image and threat for their capitalist purposes. He goes on further to identify the only real losers of this 'game'. Us.
Bin Ladin is NOT Goldstein. I think he addresses this above.
I wonder if any significance to the reference to the lectures at Royal Institute of International Affairs other than he has got broadband now?
ViolentPanda said:Never?
That'll be news to those CIA officers who funnelled US financial backing (alongside the ibn Saud and their hangers-on) to the Mujahideen (and especially to ObL and his fellow "Arab Afghanis") during and after the Soviet-Afghan war.
Never say never, pencil-neck.
They funded money to Afghan Mujahadeen via the ISI. The 'Arab Afghans' were insignificant during the 80s war and were sufficiently well funded not to need CIA backing.
Of course as I was not there it is always possible that the odd RPG built by American companies ended up with with an Arab-Afghan.
Larry O'Hara said:
Bin Laden was disowned by his family back in 1993 IIRC. He has never been a capitalist instead preferring to live a life of hardship.
He has always been a political and not religious expert. He has a very good
understanding of political consequences.
The similarities between him and Marxism is closer that that of capitalism. However if one was to look at all aspects of his life one could present an argument that he is a capitalist.
Using your Michael Moorish arguments with me will not wash with me, my son.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Says the person who knows fuck all about Marx.
Similar threads
