Replies

Yes, that was on Snopes. But you have to read WHY it was on Snopes.

That interview was never proven untrue. It was declared a hoax because of improver journalistic etiquette:

Snopes:
You really shouldn't run an article whose source is a foreign language you don't understand unless you have a copy of the original text and you're especially confident of the translator. And you really shouldn't run an article that has already been translated once into a second language you don't understand, then re-translated. If this interview was really taken from a Portugeuse translation of an Arabic transcript, where are those other versions? Shouldn't verifying that they at least existed have been a basic step undertaken to determine that the interview wasn't a hoax before running this article? And even if the interview this article was based upon were genuine, how would we know whether the doubly-translated Arabic-to-Portuguese-to-English version bore any reliable resemblance to the meaning of the original?
>>>

They make a valid point. We all would like to see the original text. But no one has debunked any of the statements.

Now THAT I would like to see debunked.