Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

10 Years of Translated Bin Laden Messages Leaked 690

DragonFire1024 lets us know that Wikileaks has obtained 10 years of messages and interviews by Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda. The documents were translated and the messages and interviews were authenticated by the US CIA. "The nearly three hundred page, 'official use only' packet from 2004, translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a division of the CIA, includes interviews with bin Laden from various news agencies and also includes messages he sent directly to the US from the periods of 1994 to 2004. One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10 Years of Translated Bin Laden Messages Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • by DigitAl56K ( 805623 ) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:30AM (#25005981)

    Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning. For those who don't like to RTFA:

    One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.

    "Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest," said bin Laden on September 16, 2001, just five days after the attacks.

    To me the timing of that message seems far more relevant to 9/11 than a vague message 4 months prior that he could "make life miserable for the United States", "If the Taleban allowed". It seems that in as much as we've had to deal with manufactured evidence to serve the cause of the Bush administration regarding the Iraq war now it's clear that the CIA has also withheld critical counter-evidence that the American people and its allies should have been aware of. Could this message have been too sensitive to release? Well, they seemed to release other messages and video around the time of the event that helped make the case and build support for war..

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 )

      Are you really surprised?
      This is the administration that, when told that there *were* no wmds, essentially said "Fuck it, they're HIDING them!"

      I wish someone had just assassinated that fucker...

      • I wish someone had just assassinated that fucker...

        Instead you re-elected him because Faux News said his opponent looked French.

        • by OeLeWaPpErKe ( 412765 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:36AM (#25006663) Homepage

          "Saddam had no WMD's"

          It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.

          Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this :

          http://pukmedia.com/kurdish/images/stories/news_small/m4.2008/halabja%20kolag.jpg [pukmedia.com]

          The halabja campaign ... a series of rocket-based poisonous gas attacks comitted by the Iraqi government (the fire order was given by the very son of Saddam) against it's own citizens. Nobody doubts it happened. But for conspiracy theorists it's a really very very very inconvenient truth.

          After all, using those weapons obviously proves Saddam had rockets that distributed poisonous gas upon impact. Obviously every single weapon that does this is classified as WMD. It's true that they were not found. Given that Saddam actually USED those weapons that does NOT bring the question "did Bush lie ?", it merely brings the question "where are these weapons now ?". Unless you actually believe Saddam would shoot every last of his best weapons at unarmed civilians.

          Can we please bring some common sense into this ? If we know a guy shot some children, then gets arrested with powder on his hands, but without a gun, that does not mean the witnesses who saw him shoot lied. It merely means we're short a gun. That would be a VERY good reason to search the neighbourhood for said gun (especially if the next door neighbour is a Jew hating theocratic massacrer like the Iranian government).

          • by bytesex ( 112972 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:56AM (#25006785) Homepage

            "Unless you actually believe Saddam would shoot every last of his best weapons at unarmed civilians."

            Or that he dismantled them. As he has said to other people, even in private. Why are you erecting a strawman ? The timing is all that's important here. Yes, Saddam used awful weapons on his own people. But that wasn't the question. The question was: did he still have them later on, and the answer to that, it seems now, is: no. Therefore, did Bush lie ? We don't know, but it looks like it an awful lot.

            • by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @06:53AM (#25007495) Journal

              I'd have thought that one of the relevant points is whether if Iraq had some poison gas weapons somewhere, it was legitimate cause to launch a full scale invasion, occupation and installation of a more amenable government. After all, certain other countries that are considerably less likely to be invaded have much greater stockpiles of "WMD" than Iraq has ever had.

              But regardless, the UN weapons inspector (both at the time and a former one) are on record as saying that they were not finding (and had not found) evidence of "WMD". If the aim had been to deal with "WMD violations" then the logical course of action would be to allow the weapons inspectors to continue. However, as it looked more and more certain that they would find no evidence, they had to be pulled out as the US was already beginning its invasion. The carriers were in place, the troops on the move. How much evidence is needed that the US-led invasion was not motivated by WMD in any capacity? It was always a pretext and the attack took place before it could be exposed.
              • by wisty ( 1335733 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @07:04AM (#25007563)
                After Iraq, if the US asks to inspect anyone people will just say that the US is not to be trusted on weapons inspections. Dictators will be able to claim that the US is sending in spies, not working towards disarmament. With Russia going nuts, and Pakistan on the brink, the US has lost the credibility it needs to diffuse international conflicts.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by russotto ( 537200 )

                  After Iraq, if the US asks to inspect anyone people will just say that the US is not to be trusted on weapons inspections.

                  The weapons inspectors were UN, not US

                  Dictators will be able to claim that the US is sending in spies, not working towards disarmament.

                  Which Saddam did anyway.

                  With Russia going nuts, and Pakistan on the brink, the US has lost the credibility it needs to diffuse international conflicts.

                  The "credibility" needed to defuse international conflicts is enough military force to make both parti

          • Oh come on dude, many countries have bad shit, do US kick butt in all those? NO.

            Admit it, there is a alternative motive here to take oil OUT of the market to INCREASE prices, to INCREASE demand for US $$$$ to prop up the bad debt USA will NEVER PAY BACK. Even shell have admitted it.

            Japan $583b
            China $503b
            UK $283b
            OPEC $170b
            Brazil$151b
            Caribiean $122b
            Russia $65b

            The UN/IMF/WorldBank are the worlds most successful criminals.

          • by aywwts4 ( 610966 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @06:24AM (#25007335)
            Here is the big issue with this factoid.

            Halabja, March 16, 1988

            Kuwait invasion / Persian Gulf War August 1990

            Iraq War, March 20, 2003

            I think once we already go to war with someone, then end that war, and then wait a decade, we cant consider anything that happened before that "evidence". After `91 anything would be fair game, but it looks like Saddam actually kept his nose pretty clean, He probably figured it was all he had to do to keep his position, and that bush wouldn't dare invade without a good reason. Little did he know how unstable our leaders were eh?

            The claims the bush administration fabricated involved vials of anthrax and large amounts of yellow cake uranium and weapons grade aluminum with long range missiles that present a clear an imminent threat to America's national security. I don't remember the "For the people who died 15 years ago!" rational for war.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              I don't remember the "For the people who died 15 years ago!" rational for war.

              You didn't get the press release a few moments ago that retroactively changed the reason for the war yet again?

              Seriously, though, for some reason I find the constant retconning of the reasoning for the war even worse than the original lie. You might be able to claim that the original reason was due to faulty intelligence and admit to having a "we goofed" moment. (Sure, that goof resulted in tons of deaths on both sides, but stay

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )

              I think once we already go to war with someone, then end that war, and then wait a decade, we cant consider anything that happened before that "evidence". After `91 anything would be fair game, but it looks like Saddam actually kept his nose pretty clean, He probably figured it was all he had to do to keep his position, and that bush wouldn't dare invade without a good reason. Little did he know how unstable our leaders were eh?

              CNN may have lost interest but the war didn't end. There was a cease fire and a laundry list of requirements to maintain that cease fire. Saddam then played an interesting game with weapons inspectors (apparently attempting to prove to the US that chemical weapons didn't exist while implying to Iraq that they did) while siphoning funding from oil sales meant to maintain civilian infrastructure.

          • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @07:09AM (#25007583) Journal

            The question wasn't whether Saddam ever had WMDs, the question was whether he had them at the time we invaded Iraq.

            All of the evidence indicated that he did not, including reports from UN weapons inspectors who were actually working in Iraq at that time. By the way, in the month building up to the invasion, George Bush forced the inspectors to leave Iraq.

            By now, there is plenty of evidence that the decision to invade Iraq was made long before September 11, 2001. You can bet that John McCain has similar plans for the event of his own inauguration. It's what Republicans do.

          • by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @07:14AM (#25007607) Homepage Journal

            Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this :

            I don't think that anyone's disputing that he once had some rockets. However he didn't seem to have any when we invaded. The justification for war was that Saddam apparently possessed WMDs at that time and was preparing to use them. In that context, the fact that Saddam didn't in fact seem to posses any such weapons casts doubts on both the integrity or the competence of those who took us into the war.

            Unless you actually believe Saddam would shoot every last of his best weapons at unarmed civilians.

            You mean he was saving some to use against a greater threat? Like invading foreign troops, maybe?

            If we know a guy shot some children, then gets arrested with powder on his hands, but without a gun, that does not mean the witnesses who saw him shoot lied. It merely means we're short a gun

            On the other hands, rockets aren't guns. You shoot a rocket, you don't have it any more. What you're suggesting (to use your analogy) is launching an operation that could engulf half a city in riots, purely on the suspicion that there may be some more bullets somewhere around the place.

          • by vtcodger ( 957785 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:19AM (#25008845)

            ***Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this :***

            Not so actually. Do a little research and you will find that the attack at Halabja was originally blamed on the US's enemy d'jour -- Iran. It was not refocused on Iraq until America's great and noble ally Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, an action that caused him to morph into "The Beast of Baghdad".

            Most people who have looked at the issue are pretty sure that Saddam Hussein was responsible, but it is by no means the open and shut case that you present.

            ***
            "Saddam had no WMD's"

            It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.***

            Get a grip man. The fact that Iraq had WMDs in the early 1990s does not prove that it had them in 2003. In fact, it said it did not. International inspectors with pretty much unrestricted access to Iraqi facilities found none. And US investigators after the invasion found only a handful of chemical tipped artillery rounds of an obsolete type that Iraqi sources with no particular reason to lie said had been collected and destroyed prior to the 1991 Gulf War. If you've ever served in the military or worked for a large company, it'll be pretty clear to you how a few old artillery shells could have survived.

            In point of fact, had Iraq had WMDs, it would surely have used them against US troops in 2003 -- probably with devastating affect.

          • by EllisDees ( 268037 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:30AM (#25008967)

            The vast majority of his chemical weapons were destroyed under the watch of the UN after the first Gulf War. This is well [armscontrol.org] documented [usatoday.com] for anyone who cares to look. The whole argument was over the few weapons that couldn't be accounted for because of bookkeeping errors and the regular amount of chaos that happens after your country is bombed to hell. Bush did lie about the status of those weapons for political reasons, just like Clinton did in 1998, but at least Clinton had the sense not to try and take over the whole country.

    • by Gricey ( 154787 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:36AM (#25006033)

      To be honest, I don't think any of this is at all surprising.

      Sure, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will be able to make a new bunch of YouTube videos, but all the sane people realise that going to war was a sham anyway.

      The office of the POTUS chose to ignore relevant information presented to them by other departments, and that there was some other agenda for the war in Iraq, that we are unlikely to find out for a long time if ever.

      As the parent said, I think it may have more immediate implications for allies of the US who went to war based on the judgement of GWB etc. But then again, this kind of stuff on the Internets rarely gets looked at.

      Speaking as a Brit who had similar bullshitting fed to them by our own Government regarding this issue...

      • by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:07AM (#25006225)

        why?

        You don't think Peak oil, the fact that the US Dollar is an oil backed currency and the profit, and power that will give to those who control it is enough reason?

        You need to take a long hard look at the kind of people running America... And i don't mean the puppet figurehead who is in place.
         

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TapeCutter ( 624760 )
          "You need to take a long hard look at the kind of people running America"

          Two things I would like to see are; the missing Saudi pages from the 2002 US intelligence report, and a transcript of the converstaion between Powell and Arrafat when Powell visited Arrafat during Israel's siege of his HQ's. The first was widely reported, the second less so but I am dammned if I can find a decent reference or news report about either.
      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:27AM (#25006617)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @06:48AM (#25007457)

          Obviously the goal should have been to fight terrorism, not to bring democracy.

          No, the goal should have been to prevent terrorism. Hint: they don't do it because "they hate freedom".

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          "Do not enforce your values on them and they will not try to enforce their values on you."

          Call me a cynic, I can live with it, but everyone stand on their head who believes this.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by gfxguy ( 98788 )

            What's funny is people think that because they are tolerant, they can convince everyone else to be. People have their values all screwed up...

            Talk about intolerance... which societies are more tolerant of gays? Which society is more tolerant of interracial and interfaith marriages?

            Yes, a lot of so-called "Christians" will frown upon homosexual relationships... but very few will throw you in jail for it. They will frown upon someone deciding to leave and join another church, but they won't execute you for

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Bert64 ( 520050 )

              We shouldn't, and more importantly we shouldn't be changing our rules to bend to the will of others...

              If you want to go and live in an islamic country, you will be expected to follow the existing rules, you will be expected not to eat pork etc... You don't see people from the west migrating to islamic countries and demanding the right to eat pork, expected to learn the language or anything else that islam forbids...

              Why then should people come to western countries and demand exceptions to the law just for th

    • by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:38AM (#25006049)

      Wow, if the source is credible that's pretty damning.

      Erm, the "source" in this case is a known terrorist who issued a fatwa in the 1990s calling for Muslims around the world to kill Americans every chance they get. How "credible" can he be? Seriously, there is nothing new here. Bin Laden gave interview well into late 2001 claiming that he didn't do it. (And he probably didn't "do it" in any direct sense, since we know KSM was the main planner who put the operation together). But he has since given speeches praising the "magnificent 19" (what he calls the hijackers) and clearly taking credit for being their inspiration. Whether or not he had any direct hand in it, he was the leader of the organization responsible, and he had been calling (over and against other jihadi leaders) for attacks on the United States (the "far enemy") for quite some time. This message was not "too sensitive to release" -- it differed little from other messages he was giving at the time.

      • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:22AM (#25006281) Journal
        Another interpretation is that al-quaeda, "the base" was just a very small group before 9/11 that had no big international contacts. The US administration pointing finger at them helped them gain the stature they have today. The true responsibles of the 9/11 decided then to be part of al-quaeda, like many smaller terrorist group, just because Bin Laden was seen as the archetype of the anti-american terrorist.

        From all that I read, it looks like al-quaeda is more of a stand-alone complex than a hierarchically organized group. I think most al-quaeda groups begin as independent entities, make a terrorist attack, claim responsability, get labeled by the CIA as "al quaeda linked group", get contacted or contact al-quaeda. (you can invert the last two steps)
      • by oodaloop ( 1229816 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:32AM (#25006341)
        Exactly. Bin Laden is not in "charge" of Al Qaeda like Blowfeld was in charge of SPECTER. He is a figurehead and inspiration for groups that choose to call themselves affiliated with Al Qaeda. KSM was one of the masterminds of 9/11 and one of Bin Laden's chief disciples. Bin Laden did not come up with the idea of 9/11, mastermind it, organize it, or probably even fund it. He did, apparently, approve of it though beforehand and take credit for it elsewhere afterwards.

        Disclaimer: IAAIA (I am an Intelligence Analyst)
      • by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:45AM (#25006421)

        Whether or not he had any direct hand in it, he was the leader of the organization responsible,

        Whoa... stop right there.

        A terrorist organisation - or at least, one that's even remotely successful for any length of time - doesn't have the pyramid-style management structure that you're used to seeing.

        Instead, it has a bunch of loosely-organised small groups, each consisting of no more than a dozen people. These groups may have a little communication between them but by and large they're fairly autonomous - they just use a common name to identify with the common cause they share. This is why it's damnably difficult to efficiently infiltrate the organisation - put simply, nobody knows much about anyone outside their own group and this is by design.

        It follows that even if there are a few people who are considered inspirational by most within the organisation, getting rid of those few people won't necessarily achieve much. In fact, it could well be counter-productive because you'll turn them into martyrs.

      • by Chrisje ( 471362 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:02AM (#25008607)

        It is precisely because of the fact that he called Muslims to a Jihad against the Americans that I tend to believe this statement. Mind you, Bin Laden doesn't say he didn't want to do this, he plainly states he was not allowed to carry this out by his Taliban hosts. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Islamic clerics who adhere to strict morals and a relatively exhausting honor system. In many ways it reminds me of the Purists, the Calvinists and certain Roman Catholic factions we've had throughout history.

        Just because someone has a different religion than yours and just because someone's honor system makes them want to wage holy war against what you stand for it does not render everything they say null and void. I would be much more worried about certain other parties that seem to wantonly install, sponsor, demonize and then eradicate all manner of regimes across the world to further their (financial) self interest or because they misguidedly think their right cause is furthered by those actions. Because the former group is predictable if you know their morals and their honor system while the latter group is totally unpredictable and hence dangerous as hell.

        I don't "know" who the main planner of the 9/11 operation is, and probably no one ever really will, nor is it interesting. All I know is that the USSR, the USA and the world at large are partially responsible for the situation in Afghanistan after the Russian withdrawal, and we "corrected" that fuck up by invading that country and bombing it some more while we're at it. In the mean time half of Iraq is dead and/or injured and I'm sitting here wondering who the terrorists are, because I'm quite sure the crunch of army boots on gravel, the roar of jet engines and the crackle and static of radio transmissions between soldiers strike terror into the hearts of Afghan and Iraqi civilians by now.

        Here in Israel I see a lot of this. The other party in the conflict is not "credible" because they've issued Fatwahs and called for Jihad. In the mean time, most of the people you talk to feel that this is their country because the Torah claims they once lived here and the death toll on the Islamic side outstrips the death toll on the Israeli side at least ten to one. Religious War, anyone? If I were living in an Arabic town here that doesn't get decent schools or even a closed sewage system from the federal government because the "municipality doesn't receive enough taxes", I'd bloody well declare a bit of a war too. And if it takes religion for people to join it.... You get the point.

        If you (us Western nations) beat a dog (most of the rest of the world) long enough, it will bite.

        Mazaltov! We've reached that stage.

    • by L.Bob.Rife ( 844620 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:45AM (#25006083)
      While I definitely agree that all kinds of evidence has been withheld from public knowledge, there are a couple points....

      First, this is nothing new. Bin Laden has always denied involvement. The only time he acknowledged being responsible, was in some supposed sham video that was "found" in Afghanistan, and claimed by the CIA as some sort of smoking gun proving he did it.

      Second, while I certainly have never seen a solid piece of evidence proving that he was involved... Him saying he wasn't involved isn't exactly proof of innocence either. He is after all a crazy bastard who thinks it's perfectly ok to murder people because of the country they were born in.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:17AM (#25006557)

        "Who thinks it's perfectly okay to murder people because of the country they were born in."

        Take a look at our soldiers and contractors and, hell, our government, and the treatment of Iraqis over in the sandbox. What right do we have to treat them like that?

        It's incredibly naive to think that bin Laden is the only one who thinks that way.

        And this is coming from a Staff Sergeant who has seen action over there.

      • Crazy is a very poor way of describing him. He acts perfectly rational given his beliefs.

        To describe him as crazy, removes his responsibility for his actions. If he truly were crazy, he would be no less a victim, than the people he has been involved in murdering. No, I want a sane, intelligent and rational Bin Laden - I want him caught, judged and sentenced and I want it done right. I want us to show the world, that we are, in every sense of the word, better.

      • by Firehed ( 942385 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:46AM (#25006723) Homepage

        He is after all a crazy bastard who thinks it's perfectly ok to murder people because of the country they were born in.

        To whom precisely are you referring? That statement could apply to quite a few people with power these days.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zakkie ( 170306 )

        Exactly how does that differ from the USA's modus operandi? They assassinate democratically elected leaders and bomb innocents civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other countries prior to that.

    • Yeah, in September 2001 maybe he said he didn't do it. But check this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden#December_13.2C_2001 [wikipedia.org]

      Here's the most memorable quote from bin Laden. I got it from the defenselink.mil transcript [defenselink.mil]; the one in Wikipedia omits much (the part about the iron structure melting is replaced with an ellipsis).

      ...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would b

      • by tambo ( 310170 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:20AM (#25006565)
        Here's the most memorable quote from bin Laden.

        ...and from that same article:

        "On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast its analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be not only inaccurate, but also manipulative saying "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original Arabic. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "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."

        - David Stein

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • and (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thermian ( 1267986 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:32AM (#25005995)

    Anyone who stores local copies of these on their own computer and then get arrested/checked at customs can expect to be answering some very unpleasant questions.

    No really, western security services are getting far too paranoid.

  • Unpossible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zobier ( 585066 ) <zobier@@@zobier...net> on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:33AM (#25006003)

    "One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania."

    I don't understand, I was told he is directly responsible for everything that is wrong with the world!

  • Nothing Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman AT gmail DOT com> on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:35AM (#25006021) Homepage Journal

    I remember Bin Laden denying the attacks. I even remember quite a few people holding up the defense that Bin Laden couldn't have done it because "Muslim is a religion of peace". (Not that the two really go hand in hand, but it was the reaction of the time.) What is interesting here is something I missed when I heard the reports back in 2001. The key reason why Bin Laden denied his involvement:

    "I have held talks with His Eminence Amir ol-Momenin [Taleban leader Mola Mohammad Omar Mojahed], who does not allow such acts to be carried out from Afghanistan's territory." --Osama Bin Laden

    Bin Laden had a pretty cushy safe-haven there. He figured as long as he didn't piss off the Taliban leaders, they'd give him safe haven. And he figured the U.S. would not attack a sovereign nation. Which may have been true under Clinton, but he probably miscalculated how much the political climate was going to change once those towers fell.

    • by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:47AM (#25006105)

      Bin Laden had a pretty cushy safe-haven there. He figured as long as he didn't piss off the Taliban leaders, they'd give him safe haven. And he figured the U.S. would not attack a sovereign nation. Which may have been true under Clinton, but he probably miscalculated how much the political climate was going to change once those towers fell.

      First, that wasn't "true under Clinton" at all. Look at Clinton's speech of August 20 1998 in response to the Kenya and Tanzania bombings. Bush's first major speech after 9/11 was nine days later (9/20/01) and all of the main points are virtually taken verbatim from the Clinton speech. Obviously the US response was different in 2001 because the stakes were much higher -- it's a lot easier to get the American public on a war footing in response to an attack on New York than one on embassies in African countries most Americans had never heard of.

      Second, bin Laden was banking on the US responding. I think he underestimated the size of the response and the ability of the American public to withstand American casualties, but he was hoping for the US to attack Afghanistan -- he believed that Muslims around the world would rally to al Qaeda's defense in Afghanistan the way they had in response to the Soviet invasion. That just didn't happen, not in any significant numbers (although it did a few years later in Iraq thanks to the U.S. blunder there). So I agree with you that bin Laden miscalculated big time, but I think the miscalculation was different.

    • by CarbonShell ( 1313583 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:32AM (#25006339)
      But the Taliban were haggling with the US at the time over a pipeline through Afghanistan and were discussing how they could drop Bin Laden. The US knew Bin Laden was there because the Taliban told them he was there and were asking the US for assistance to get Bin Laden out so they could close the deal. Remember the US never had a quarrel with the Taliban before 9/11 and the Taliban were even invited to the US by Bush. I remember Ms Bush *defending* the Burkah (sp?) on TV. Remember these were the people that told you how evil the Taliban had seemingly became after 9/11. Same game with their old pal Saddam or countless others before him. Every time the same deal. First we like him and support him ('what, he oppresses his own people? Why do you hate America?') and then when opportunity strikes all the bad things he did under our guarding had is used by us to attack him. ('what, our actions are hypocritical because we supported him? Why do you hate America?') After 8 years of Bush, how can anyone still believe in a benevolent and honest government? We get lied to time and time again and with every new story people still take it at face value. Oh our government would never lie to us.
  • ...for mentioning "his denial" in the summary, you just turned this into a damn forum for "truthers." You know, the people who are do deluded, they thing that Purdue University [purdue.edu] and Popular Mechanics [popularmechanics.com] are part of the "vast right wing conspiracy." Seriously, I've read some of their ideas on the boards. They'll literally go A->B->C->D->E->F->G and be like "and that proves Purdue University's study is faked by the gov't."
  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:46AM (#25006101)

    not that Bin Laden would ever lie... nor would Bush.. They're both angels!

    Just because one's lying doesn't mean the other is telling the truth.

  • by jordan314 ( 1052648 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:54AM (#25006151)
    Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and then later claimed credit in a 2004 video for personally directing the 19 hijackers. Sources, including a transcript of the video: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden [wikipedia.org] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html [www.cbc.ca] http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/ [cnn.com]
    • doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)

      People invested in conspiracy theories that put the US government behind 9/11 will point out that there is no proof directly tying him to the attacks, that the FBI hasn't updated its file to include 9/11 as one of the crimes he is "wanted" for, etc. They'll say that the above video is faked, mistranslated, misinterpreted. And none of it matters -- OBL was the leader of the al Qaeda organization, he has openly called for Muslims to kill Americans going back to 1996, given interviews praising terrorist atta

  • by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:00AM (#25006197) Homepage

    That's the movie script I was working on.

  • by GaryPatterson ( 852699 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:03AM (#25006203)

    16 Jan 2004, 8:58am
    Tim,
    Can you bring some milk and bread over please?
    Thanks,
    O

    18 Jan 2004, 5:24pm
    What happened? I'm starving out here you know! I can't just pop down to the shop for supplies, it's a freaking desert out there!

    22 Jan 2004, 3:42pm
    Tim,
    Are you mad at me? Is that why you're not talking? I'm sorry I was angry in my last email.
    Just drop by, we'll talk and drink coffee. You'll need to bring the coffee though. And some milk and bread. Maybe honey too. I like honey.
    O

    28 Jan 2004, 5:30pm
    Bob,
    Can you check up on Tim for me? It's like he's frozen me out or something. I just want to know everything's okay.
    Also, can you send me a few bottles of milk and some loaves of bread. Maybe honey and jam too. Oh, and coffee! Not that I need to stay awake out here. You never think you're bored until you're stuck in a cave in the wilderness. Luckily I've got ADSL here.
    Thanks, and say "Hi" to Mary and the kids for me,
    O

    29 Jan 2004, 12:37pm
    O,
    I think Tim's gone. Looks like he left in a hurry. Typical of his type - I told you about him, you'll remember. Anyway, I'll get Chuck to drop over some supplies in the next day or so.
    Look after yourself,
    Bob

    29 Jan 2004, 3:52pm
    Damn it! I thought Tim was different. I thought he had commitment, you know? What happened to people who could take the long view?
    Anyway, thanks for getting chuck to drop the food over. I appreciate it - there'll be an extra virgin for you in the afterlife!
    Can you remind Chuck to bring a can opener? I don't want to have to shoot these ones open. Those soldiers nearly heard me last time.
    Thanks again,
    O

  • by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:04AM (#25006505)

    The summary makes it sound like Wikileaks has some kind of mole in the CIA who handed them documents in a shadowy meeting on a grassy knoll... Wikileaks only "obtained" the documents in the sense that "obtained" means "read about in a blog [fas.org]." The documents were first published a couple days ago on Steven Aftergood's excellent newsletter, Secrecy News.

  • I got one (Score:5, Funny)

    by jsse ( 254124 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:57AM (#25006793) Homepage Journal
    After numerous rounds of "We don't know if Osama Bin Ladin is still alive," Bin Ladin himself decided to send George W. Bush a note in his own handwriting to let Bush know that he was still in the game.

    Bush opened the note which appeared to contain a single line of coded message: 370HSSV-0773H.

    Bush was baffled, so he E-mailed it to John McCain. McCain and his aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one could solve it at the FBI, so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA.

    With no clue as to its meaning, the FBI finally asked Britain's MI-6 for help. Within a few seconds, MI-6 cabled back with this reply: "Tell Bush that he is holding the message upside down."
  • JFK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @06:05AM (#25007209) Journal

    The US loves its conspiracies and the killing of JFK is perhaps the granddaddy of them all.

    What is intresting to see is not the theories themselves but how simplistic and wishful they are. You get the idea that conspiracy theorists are people who desperately want to life in an organized world where at least SOMEONE is in charge. Look around, check all the conspiracy theories and they ALL lead to the same conclusion. SOMEONE somewhere is in charge. That makes the world a lot easier to deal with. If you like the world as it is, then X will keep it that way. If you don't like the world as it is, all you got to is topple X. Easy.

    With JFK you got several theories who could have done the killing, all shadowy groups that are claimed to control far more then they are supposed to. If only you could expose them freedom of the people could be restored.

    Yet the intresting thing is what the conspiracy theorists neatly ignore, because they don't want to hear this, but is far more damning. That several groups had seperate plans to assasinate the president of the united states. For certain groups like members of the FBI this in itself is treason enough. They never actually need to put the plan in motion, even discussing it should be enough to earn them some serious time at a secret location.

    But the conspiracy theorists don't want to hear that the world ain't run by anyone and that bad things happen just because one group/person went beyond talking, that makes the world far to chaotic and random.

    There were people planning to kill JFK, conspiracy theorists are right, they just didn't carry it out, but for a lot of them the planning alone should still be a crime in itself.

    In a way it like a Murder She Wrote episode, where to find out the killer she tells everyone she has the evidence and will be at location Y. The person to then show up to kill her, is the killer. Well not always, SOMETIMES it is a person seeking to protect the real killer. This is what causes all the weirdness around JFK, various groups who had been thinking/hinting that JFK should be killed trying to cover up that they might have been involved. Had someone they knew taken their words to heart? The cover-up happened even when there was nothing to cover up.

    The same, in a far more complex mess goes for 9/11. If you look at it, you can hope that someone somewhere is in charge OR come to the sickening conclusion that it all was just a mess of people suggesting things, others listening, misreading, misjudging until you come down to a case where some people did something and others failed to stop them because nobody really is in charge and all the things that normally go right, suddenly went wrong all together. 9/11 if you like was an accident. The idea that there is one person at the top on either side who planned it all is wishfull thinking. Osama on side and Dick Cheny on the other NEVER wanted this to happen. Not 9/11 and NOT the war on terror. Oh Osama wanted an attack BUT not one that would end up with two muslim countries under american control and NO worldwide muslim uprising. Realize this, Osama got NO response from western muslims. There are MILLIONS living in the west, and that is where they stayed.

    Dick Cheney and the likes on the other hand haven't gained anything either. High oil prices? So what? America doesn't prosper from that at all.

    No, 9/11 was just one of those things that happened.

    If you want to make sense of it, then Captain Blackadder said it best. 9/11 happened because it was to much of an effort NOT to have a war.

    Nobody planned it, just nobody worked hard enough to stop it. And that includes US the people who voted for the people to incompetent to create world peace.

    • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @08:20AM (#25008085) Journal

      Dick Cheney and the likes on the other hand haven't gained anything either.

      Four more years?
      Patriot act to control the peasants?

      High oil prices? So what? America doesn't prosper from that at all.

      Some rich fat Americans in Texas probably had to be sedated cause all that excitement over a 4$ a gallon price was bad for them.

      9/11 happened because it was to much of an effort NOT to have a war.

      Wait...wha... WHAT?

  • by Capt James McCarthy ( 860294 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @07:31AM (#25007707) Journal

    I have a feeling there will be more and more information and mis-information of this kind as the Presidential election comes closer.

    So with anything this time of year, I'll take it with a grain of salt and speculation.

  • by Britz ( 170620 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @08:10AM (#25007985)

    See? Bush was right. The US did invade the right country. 9/11 is the whole reason for the war in Iraq.

    "And what about the war in Afghanistan?"

    Afga-What?

    --
    Was that a good Palin?

  • by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @08:15AM (#25008041) Homepage Journal

    Of course. Was that your point?

  • by cinnamon colbert ( 732724 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @08:48AM (#25008413) Journal

    If I read bin laden correctly, his main goal is to replace the corrupt, dictatorial, apostate regimes in the islamic world with a single religious state, the caliphate. He hates us cause we support those govt; he doesnt really care about our western freedom and life style all that much
    Bush say that bin laden hates us cause of our freedom.
    what is amusing is that bin laden is loosing the war he started - we are more involved, with more corrupt regimes then before 9/11; at the same time bush is loosing his war, as we have less freedom.
    I finally understand the curse part of the (supposed) chinese saying, may you live in interesting times.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:33PM (#25012057) Homepage

    This is no big deal. The "Foreign Broadcast Information Service" was a pre-Internet version of Google News, run by the CIA. It was a bunch of people listening to the public radio broadcasts of foreign countries. (Imagine listening to Radio Albania during the Cold War, taking notes, as a full time job.) Once in a while, something important might be mentioned. It wasn't secret, and transcripts were provided to the US press on request. It was a cheap way of finding out what other countries said they were doing.

fortune: No such file or directory

Working...