Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bin Laden Translation Omitted Sections
ABCNEWS.com ^ | John Miller

Posted on 12/20/2001 4:23:10 PM PST by John W

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 12/20/2001 4:23:10 PM PST by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John W
BIG Texas BUMP!
2 posted on 12/20/2001 4:26:39 PM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
Nothing new here ABCnews. The tape playing was advertized as Translation provided by US Government whenever I saw it. I assumed that there were statements uttered that were not translated. Saudi Arabia should be embarrased, not by this tape though.
3 posted on 12/20/2001 4:32:31 PM PST by UB355
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
Apparently the official US translation was simply trying to be diplomatic. Be sure, though, that the millions of Arabic-speaking audience that saw the tape all the way through knew and understood what was left out. Psychologically, this is even more devastating, when the US KNOWS, but does not make it widely known until later that they know.

Who says the US are amateurs at psy-war?

4 posted on 12/20/2001 4:34:39 PM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
In the article by the translators, they said if they didn't agree 100% they put (unitelligable). Even if they were 75%/25% or 60%/40% positive it was still was omitted. This translation fleshs out those gaps. ABC translation even more damning.
5 posted on 12/20/2001 4:41:32 PM PST by not-an-ostrich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
...which had led to all sorts of advertising by the Saudis, claiming to be our friends. Wonder who they're trying to convince ?
6 posted on 12/20/2001 4:42:06 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John W
bin Laden's support is not limited to the radical side of Islam but also among the Saudi religious establishment

The implicit fallacy is the implied division between the "radicals" and the "establishment".

They are, of course, the same thing.

7 posted on 12/20/2001 4:43:07 PM PST by NativeNewYorker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
We have smugglers in the US. We have secret police too. We even have some people that think America deserved this. All SA aren't our friends but sadly, neither are all Americans.
8 posted on 12/20/2001 4:43:13 PM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
A member of the team that translated the tape for the U.S. government said the ABCNEWS translation is consistent with portions of the government's transcript that have not been released to the public.

It's bad enough that we've been soft-pedaling the Saudi's on their "investigation" and "cooperation". Now we are actively suppressing info embarrassing (or incriminating?) about them. What do they have on Bush? Or someone else? This stinks to Allah's high heaven. 15 of 17 hijackers, active support by people in country -- forget Iraq and Somolia -- that country should be a target.
9 posted on 12/20/2001 4:43:46 PM PST by self_evident
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
The gov't/religion/terrorist triangle!
10 posted on 12/20/2001 4:45:08 PM PST by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W;howlin;chaser
several prominent clerics — some with connections to the Saudi government — made speeches supporting the attacks on America.

Could mean Bill and Hill, but they aren't clerics. Antichrists, but not clerics

11 posted on 12/20/2001 4:45:41 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OWK; tex-oma; annalex; LSJohn; Demidog
fyi
12 posted on 12/20/2001 4:46:12 PM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
Remember when Rudy told that Saudi Sheik to keep his lousy $20 million? Hmmmmm...
13 posted on 12/20/2001 4:47:05 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
I think the parts left out was Tom Daschle is a left wing boob and needs to get the stimulus package passed and on to the infidel GW Bush's desk by tommorow!!!
14 posted on 12/20/2001 4:49:20 PM PST by NC Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
"It shows that bin Laden's support is not limited to the radical side of Islam but also among the Saudi religious establishment," says Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College. "And that is bad news for Saudi Arabia."
Bad news for the house of Saud, yes.
15 posted on 12/20/2001 4:50:56 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
...which had led to all sorts of advertising by the Saudis, claiming to be our friends. Wonder who they're trying to convince ?

Us. Pre-emptive "friendly" PR. Acts speak louder than words. I don't think they understand that. I think they think we are as stupid as they (Arabs) are; that we will fall for the PR. They do the PR, because they studied marketing, at one of our prestigious business schools. They think we are like hamburgers. But, we are hammers.

16 posted on 12/20/2001 4:52:28 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: John W
So, where is ABC's translation? The quotes in this article are things I saw and heard on the US tape (translation) already.. If there were errors of omission made why doesn't ABC list them? I went to ABC's web site and could not find "their" translation.
18 posted on 12/20/2001 4:57:03 PM PST by Kangaroo Court
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
Also in one of the tabloids today ... mentions that there were sections spliced out referring to specific future threats.
19 posted on 12/20/2001 4:57:17 PM PST by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
When I read the UBL transcripts for the first time, I noticed several "inaudible" notations. I remember reading the transcripts for the wiretap that Tripp wore with Lewinsky and finding "inaudible" at several key points in the conversation. It was clear to me then, as it is now, that "inaudible" = "too damaging."
20 posted on 12/20/2001 5:00:02 PM PST by EyesWideOpen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson