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

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

;


Osama bin Laden

 

Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video - the German Press Investigates

by Craig Morris

A GERMAN TV show found that the White House's translation of the "confession" video was not only inaccurate, but even "manipulative".

 

ON December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the OBL video that George Bush has called a "confession of guilt". On the show Monitor, two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation not only to be inaccurate, but "manipulative".

Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states,

"I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy…", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that:

"'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."

The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go". He also say that the sentence afterwards - "they didn't know anything about the operation" - cannot be understood.

Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up:

"The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

Meanwhile the US press has not picked up on this story at all, reporting instead that a new translation has revealed that OBL even mentions the names of some of those involved. But the item is all over the German press, from Germany's Channel One ("Das Erste" - the ones who broke the story, equivalent to NBC or the BBC) to ZDF (Channel Two) to Der Spiegel (the equivalent of Time or The Economist. More surprisingly, as I write the following site appears on Lycos in German: http://www.netzeitung.de/servlets/page?section=1109&item=172422 - but nothing under lycos.com in English.

Instead, we read in The Washington Post of Friday, December 21, 2001 (the day after the German TV show was broadcast) that a new translation done in the US

"also indicates bin Laden had even more knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon than was apparent in the original Defense Department translation.... Although the expanded version does not change the substance of what was released, it provides added details and color to what has been disclosed."

 

TVI'll say. Aren't there any reporters in the US who speak German (or Arabic, for that matter)? An article in USA Today of December 20, 2001 sheds some light on why the original translation might not be accurate: "The first translation was rushed in 12 hours, in a room in the Pentagon".

So why didn't the new US translation find the same discrepancies as the German translators did? Read the article in USA Today against the grain:

"Michael, who is originally Lebanese, translated the tape with Kassem Wahba, an Egyptian. Both men had difficulties with the Saudi dialect bin Laden and his guest use in the tape, Michael said."

Why can a Saudi translator not be found in a multicultural country like the US, especially with the close business relations between the US and Saudi Arabia? [George] Bush Sr. probably knows any number of them himself.

Of course, if we ever hear about the German analysis in the US press, the reactions will be that some will never believe that OBL is behind the attacks no matter what you tell them. But actually, Americans are just as stubborn in refusing to face facts.

One moderator on Fox News complained to his interviewee that the European media were focusing too much on civilian casualties in Afghanistan. (I wondered which European languages this moderator could speak; a few weeks later, he happened to say on his show that he had had "three years of German". This, he claimed, would allow him to "do the show in German.")

His interviewee responded that, yes, the Taliban were very savvy manipulators of the media. So there we have it: Europeans get their information straight from the Taliban Ministry of Propaganda.

Craig Morris is a translator living in Europe. The original broadcast of the German show can be viewed in German at [this link].

 

Related items on this website:

 Article on German TV programme [in German]
 


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: Demidog
***The tape was translated by a Saudi not a german. The US used an Egyptian. Why do you think? ***

It's my understand that no fewer than 4 independent translators were used. Yes, one was Egyptian, but the others were Arabic.

41 posted on 01/11/2002 6:42:23 AM PST by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Consider that it may be these two men are the ones lying. ;o)
42 posted on 01/11/2002 6:43:14 AM PST by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
Egyptian and Lebanese we know about for sure on the U.S. team. That would make them all Arabic if I understand how that works.

The point made by this writer is a good one. bin Laden and his visitor were Saudi and dialect can make a big difference.

43 posted on 01/11/2002 6:46:53 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Of course, CNN (!) had a translation done as well. Unfortunately for the America Haters it proved even more devastating than the Gov. translation so the Bushwhackers ignore that one and try and pretend that the Germans came to a different meaning. Nothing written here shows any significant difference. Sorry. You will have to keep trying.
44 posted on 01/11/2002 6:47:40 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
My understanding is that the video was viewed independently by other "outside" Arab language specialists, including native speakers of Arabic of which there are a good many in the U.S., and they independently confirmed that the translation was correct.

Sahih

45 posted on 01/11/2002 6:47:56 AM PST by a_witness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a_witness
Holy crap. Somebody mark the date and time. A-witness and I are in complete agreement. This is BS. Like so many bad conspiracy ideas it fails the brilliant idiot test. Ie the conspirators would have to be pretty sharp to get all those indepentant translators to hold the story while being interviewed by the various networks; but down right dumb to fudge the translation on a video that lots of people outside the conspiracy (ie our German "friends" here) have access to and could show the translation was fudged.

Any proposed conspiracy where the conspirators would have to be brilliant to pull it off but stupid to have tried in the first place is probably bogus.

46 posted on 01/11/2002 6:59:03 AM PST by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
When I said Arabic I meant to include Saudi. Sorry. ;o)

The article is interesting but I don't know that I'd trust their opinion. Did they offer their own translation? That'd be a telling thing to see, imo.

47 posted on 01/11/2002 7:05:53 AM PST by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
So you think ANY journalist can be trusted with national security? Why are American journalists more trustworthy?

The article feigns to give more credibility to Craig by calling him a translator. While there are treacherous Americans, in Journalism and even on FR, European journalists are trouble looking for a date.

48 posted on 01/11/2002 7:07:58 AM PST by a_witness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
I wrote to the author to see if I could obtain one. His mailbox was full and my mail bounced. I'm still looking.
49 posted on 01/11/2002 7:08:50 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: a_witness
This guy is probably a German translator and I doubt it gives him any credibility here. He's reporting what is being said in the German press.
50 posted on 01/11/2002 7:10:04 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Demidog; CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; susangirl; one_particular_harbour
Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states,

"I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy…", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that:

"'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."

The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go". He also say that the sentence afterwards - "they didn't know anything about the operation" - cannot be understood.

Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg sums it up:

"The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

Demidog, since I don't speak or read Arabic, and I'm guessing you don't either, we're both left with the decision of whose translation we should trust.

The excerpt above from your article quotes an "Arabist," a "translator" (for whom?) with an Arabic name, and a German "professor" of Islamic and Arabic Studies. Their backgrounds don't inspire me with confidence. I generally don't trust Arabists or professors of ethnic and cultural studies, and I have no idea of the credentials of this Arab translator.

So, until I'm shown something compelling, and this article falls short of that threshhold, I'm going with the official story as my fall-back position.

However, I'm not closed-minded... what I'd like to see are the Arabic interpretations of the tapes side by side, and the corresponding translations, also side by side. That would be of interest.


51 posted on 01/11/2002 7:11:57 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
What they prove is that the government is lying.

You will allow this same standard of "proof" for others making claims? Two Arabic guys and an oriental specialist (what is that? a guy who studies orientals or an oriental guy who is "special")who may or may not be sympathetic to the terrorists. This sounds like a bad joke. Did you hear the one about the two translators and the oriental specialist?

52 posted on 01/11/2002 7:16:39 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
>>>>>Do you really think the US only used ONE person to translate this? Get a life! Nope.I don't beleieve I ever said that.<<<<<

<<<<<<>>>>>The tape was translated by a Saudi not a german. The US used an Egyptian. Why do you think? 9 posted on 1/11/02 6:38 AM Pacific by Demidog<<<<< I guess it depends on the meaning of "an"!

Am I missing something, or did you respond to me that you never said that?

53 posted on 01/11/2002 7:17:12 AM PST by irish guard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
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."

If one removes the word "previous" from the translation the idea of the sentence is unchanged so long as the tense of the rest of the statement is accurate. The word "previous" only serves to specify a particular Thursday, rather than any Thursday prior to 9/11.

Allow me to speculate... Biblical Greek is complex compaired with english. A particular word can have modified meaning depending on its position in a sentence, and even the selection and position of the other words in that sentence. This makes the translation process much more complex than simply substituting word for word. Could this be a similar situation with much ado about nothing?

54 posted on 01/11/2002 7:17:29 AM PST by 70times7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irish guard
I didn't say that. I said that the U.S. used an Egyptian. They also used a Lebanese man biut nowhere do I say that ONLY one translator was used.
55 posted on 01/11/2002 7:28:48 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: 70times7
Could be. I am not an expert in Arabic. The fact that the Government may have mis-translated is troubling.
56 posted on 01/11/2002 7:29:58 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
However, I'm not closed-minded... what I'd like to see are the Arabic interpretations of the tapes side by side, and the corresponding translations, also side by side. That would be of interest.

Me too. I'm trying to obtain one.

57 posted on 01/11/2002 7:31:01 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
BUMP
58 posted on 01/11/2002 7:33:49 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
What they prove is that the government is lying. Not that unusual. Does it prove bin Laden is innocent? I wouldn't know.

They didn't prove anything. They said that certain sentences were incorrectly translated, but give no alternate meaning to the sentences. Plus, they admitted to having a difficult time understanding the dialect Bin Laden used. Does that prove the five separate translators in the U.S. were incorrect? Hardly.

59 posted on 01/11/2002 7:34:35 AM PST by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Like so many bad conspiracy ideas it fails the brilliant idiot test.

Enron: 'exposing what is wrong with the way the Bush administration is conducting itself these days.' (from the article Bush's whitewater/worse)

Guess this one 'fails the brillian idiot test',too. Right?

60 posted on 01/11/2002 7:34:38 AM PST by Ridin' Shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

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