Anything you hear
about a bin Laden confession is bullshit
Osama's Confession, real or a propaganda piece?
Having failed to provide any proof to anyone that Osama Bin Laden was behind
the attacks on the World Trade Towers, or for that matter that he is not still in the employ of the
CIA, the latest tactic of the government propagandists will be another
attempt to turn a video taped statement by Osama into a
"confession".
According to The London Telegraph, conclusive proof of Osama's
guilt will soon be forthcoming in the form of a video taped confession.
But there are two problems with this claim. The first is that any translations of what Osama says provided by the media
accurate? As was demonstrated recently with the "Osama has nukes"
story, the english translation being provided may
not be an accurate portrayal of what was actually said. As Rudyard Kipling observed, truth is the first casualty of war.
Certainly the Pentagon proved that when it lied about the success of the raid
in Afghanistan.
With the potential for deliberate mistranslations in mind, much of what Osama
is purported to have said starts to look less than convincing.
Terrorists never call themselves terrorists. They call themselves freedom fighters, or something like that. That's certainly what
Osama called himself when the CIA trained and funded him to do what he does.
Adopting the opposition's name is a sign of defeat.
Osama also apparently agrees that the World Trade Towers were a legitimate target. I don't agree with that, of course,
but given the CIA's rampant killing of civilians in the mid east with car
bombs and other such devices, I can see how middle easterners would come to
that conclusion. After all, when the CIA tried to car bomb Sheik Mohammed Hossein Fadlallah in 1985, the
bomb missed the Sheik but killed 80 people, including children. The lesson is
clear; Americans view innocents as legitimate targets of attacks.
Be that as it may, the combination of Osama's
admiration for the hijackers, his declaration of being a freedom fighter (or
terrorist, depending on the translator), and his statement that the WTC was a
legitimate target may be made to look like a confession, but they aren't. And
the proof of that (and a good means to test future propaganda) is that if
Osama wasn't behind the WTC attacks, it doesn't change a single one of the
statements he made. Even if he was not behind the WTC attacks, Osama's admiration for the hijackers would remain the
same, he would still be a freedom fighter (or terrorist, depending on the
translator), and he would still view the WTC as a legitimate target.
The tape that Britain will release next Wednesday appears to be a re-edit
and re-translation of the same video which was shown briefly about two weeks
ago, again with the claim that it represented a confession. It doesn't. This
latest effort doesn't prove that Osama was behind the attacks, only that he
doesn't like the United States, and whether you like it or not, it is not a crime
not to like the United States.
Osama doesn't really need a translator. Prior to being recruited by the CIA
he was a playboy all over Europe and he speaks excellent English. If he wanted to confess to an
act of terror, he could do so, direct to the American people, in our own
language.
Why doesn't he?
If Osama is guilty, he has everything to gain and nothing to lose by
announcing that he was the planner and organizer of the WTC attacks. The US
Government has already declared him guilty by fiat, without a trial, without
a defense attorney, without due process, and it should be added without any
evidence. Faking innocence isn't going to change the outcome for Osama. On
the other hand, real terrorists always admit to what they have done. They
BRAG about it, because the status a successful attack can bring to a
terrorist organization brings them credibility and usually added funding from
their sponsors.
Finally, real terrorists have a socio-political intent. The purpose of a
terrorist attack is to force a population to do something. In order to
achieve that socio-political goal, the terrorist organization HAS to claim
responsibility for the terrorist act, else the
social-political goal is never linked to the terrorist act.
The only party that is using the attacks on the
WTC for a socio-political goal is the government of the United States, which
is using the attacks to manufacture support for a war, a war already planned
and announced months before the attacks on the WTC, a war which seems to
exist solely to clear out the right-of-way for an oil pipeline.
Who are the real terrorists here?
Don't forget who was implicated in the earlier attempt to bomb the World Trade Towers.
© IndyMedia UK Webcast.
|
