Bin Laden expert skeptical about
latest purported bin Laden tape
|
by Amber Rupinta, WTDV-TV -- Durham, NC
Jan. 19, 2006
A Duke professor says he is doubtful about Thursday's audiotape from Osama bin Laden.
Bruce Lawrence has just published Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, a book translating bin Laden's writing. He is skeptical of Thursday's message.
"It was like a voice from the grave," Lawrence said.
He has doubts about the tape, and thinks bin Laden is dead. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements.
"There's nothing in this from the Koran. He's, by his own standards, a faithful Muslim," Lawrence said. "He quotes scripture in defense of his actions. There's no quotation from the Koran in the excerpts we got, no
|
Commentary by Madeline Zane:
Did you notice how the stories all ran 3-year-old photos of Bin Laden and all forgot to mention that this was only an AUDIO TAPE? Any doofus with a couple hundred dollars worth of computer equipment can splice together an audio tape, you morons.
=Madeline Zane=
|
|
|
reference to specific events, no reference to past atrocities."
While the CIA confirms the voice on the tape is bin Laden's, Lawrence questions when it was recorded. He says the timing of its release could be to divert attention from last week's US air strike in Pakistan. The strike targeted bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and [reportedly] killed four leading al Qaeda figures along with civilians.
Lawrence believes faulty Pakistani intelligence led to the strike and the civilian deaths, and the tape was leaked by Pakistani authorities to divert attention from their mistake.
"It led to a failed military operation where America got blamed, but they people who are really to blame are the ones who provided the intelligence," Lawrence said. "I think this is an effort to say were not going look at this terrible incident that happened."
Another element that Lawrence takes issue with in bin Laden's latest message is it's length -- only 10 minutes. Previously, the shortest was 18 minutes.
As originally published
This is an archived Unknown News page. For newest material, visit our main page.
|
We appreciate the heck out of everyone who helps.
|
|
| All republished material is copyrighted by its original publisher.
It is reprinted by Unknown News without permission, solely for purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under § 107 of U.S.C. Title 17:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. |
|
|
There's much more than this at Unknown News.
|
|
Commentary by Cheryl Seal:
Back in 2002, the Bush administration was chagrined when the world's foremost voice identification experts, a group in Switzerland called IDIAP analyzed several Bin Laden tapes and concluded that a "CIA-verified" bin Laden tape was NOT bin Laden, but someone whose voice patterns resembled the terrorist's.
Now again we have a bin Laden tape that arrives just when Bush needs a "terrorist diversion." And once again, we have only the CIA "experts" verifying the authenticity.
So why since 2002 hasn't the IDIAP been called in to verify these always conveniently timed tapes? And why is no CIA expert ever actually named?
And as further evidence of how closely the US media is colluding with Bush, journalists who once queried the institute for their opinion on the authenticity of bin Laden tapes are no longer doing so.
=Cheryl Seal=
|
|
Down memory lane ...
Nov. 22, 2002:
Bin Laden tape “faked,”
say Swiss experts
Feb. 14, 2003:
US now says terror threat info was fabricated
Feb. 21 and March 15, 2003:
Justice Dept. lied about
terror cases, says GAO
and Justice Dept. lies about
terror cases -- again
Dec. 8, 2003:
Figures show 'hype' of terror war
Dec. 21, 2003:
U.S. officials are lying
about terrors stats (again)
Feb. 5, 2004:
German court acquits
alleged 9/11 conspirator
March 4, 2004:
The terrifying terror of terrorism
March 4, 2004:
US stonewalling
may let another
terror suspect off the hook
April 9, 2004:
Why won't the U.S. cooperate with Sept. 11 prosecutions?
Convicted Sept. 11 terrorist freed pending retrial
April 13, 2004:
Ashcroft is lying about counter-terror efforts
June 3, 2004:
Another terror suspect
freed by feds
Again, "national security"
trumps "war on terror"
July 19, 2004:
Feds' claims of terror prosecutions don't add up (again)
Aug. 3, 2004:
Reports that led to
terror alert were years
old, officials now say
Aug. 5, 2004:
Chart:
Bush ratings vs. terror alerts
Oct. 4, 2004:
Study shows terror warnings boost Bush approval rates
Feb. 17, 2005:
Ridge, pollsters met
during Bush campaign
April 14, 2005:
US-touted "terror case"
evaporates into more
Bush administration lies
May 8, 2005:
Latest "high-ranking"
al Qaeda capture was
another nobody, another lie
May 10, 2005:
"Flimsy evidence" behind
terror alerts, ex-Homeland
Security Sec'ty now admits
June 12, 2005:
Feds wildly exaggerate terror prosecution records (again)
Oct. 12, 2005:
The polls and the terror alerts: A series of odd coincidences
|
|
|
