I’d like a GQ cite for that
I believe the only controversy is the one by Monitor - there does not seem to be any other credible voice - although many, many websites seem to repeat it as established fact.
Lol, you were the one who said it here:
Wikipedia also says, “In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the 19 hijackers.”
Strangely, however, I was not able to find any reference to this in the wikipedia article specifically on the 2004 tape, nor in the two articles cited by the original sentence. In fact, while I at first assumed that at least this much can be confidently said of bin Laden’s involvement, I am now not clear.
That’s not fair. The Monitor raised the issue, and it should have been addressed. What are we to think if the Monitor says, “look at these particular sentences, they’re wrong” and is replied by silence.
I think the preponderance of the GQ evidence is that there is nothing to address You may not like it but I repeat the SDMBGQ answer is :
The monitor with its two experts -says that the tape was misquoted.
Again on the other side
The Pentagon, George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. The New York Times’ two independent translators. Al Jeezrea. Pravda of a conspiratorial anti-American bent, but importantly here their translator doesn’t dispute what is being said on the Tape but only that it could be “over-dubbed”. And never anything by Al Queda saying that this is a lie.
I think that** is** the evidence in a GQ way & that there really is nothing to more to address here.
Ouch. That is embarassing. My editing skills suck. I was distracted. Sorry.
I was asking for a cite for the next sentence:
I’m sorry. I got a little lazy, I should have spent more time looking into the Monitor issue myself.
It does seem that the vast majority of referenes to the Deceber 13 2001 tape (aka the hanging-out tape) on Google come immediately following, or even before, its release. In fact the Monitor’s Dec 20th piece is among the last journalistic commentary to be found.
Other sources that devoted considerable coverage to it included PBS on Dec 14, who discussed at length the incredulity it inspired in the Muslim world, apparently because many people did not want to believe bin Laden was responsible for the acts. Nevertheless the journalist inteviewed by PBS also says things like, “The Arabic is barely audible without looking at the English.”
After 15 pages of Google and 10 pages of Google News, I can say there is very little to be found. The China Daily, among other sources, did write a good article making the case that bin Laden implicates several Saudis, and that the US did not provide translations for those parts because of the Administration’s ties to Saudi Arabia. However, this has little relevance to the discussion.
Well actually, it has some. CNN on Dec 21 hired translators to analyze the tape and investigate the Saudi implications.
However, I really wish someone would have addressed the Monitor directly.
Perhaps we should take Donald Rumsfeld’s advice (also from the CNN article),
That quote should just read, “The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” That first sentence I thought belonged to CNN’s tape, but I was mistaken. bin Laden would never say that, and in fact it makes the rest of the quote not sound believable.
I asked you for a cite that "What was not mentioned is that bin Laden, in several tapes, has actively denied involvement."
You provided a reasonable cite that bin Laden had ever denied involvement (& I will cop that I was unaware that any MSM had ever reported this happened until you provided the cite you did, so I learned something).
But to be GQ clear this is a statement issued to AL Jazeera 5 days after the attacks when the world is reeling in horror and read by an Al Jeezera announcer. AL Jeezera presumably had someway to authentic the statement and ran with it. Huh. Had no idea. Learned something. But its not a tape, let alone multiple tapes.
Hmm, you’re right, it was just someone reading from a statement.* I couldn’t find any other missive where he actually denied involvement.
Still, I didn’t find anything where he claims he was the mastermind or central leader. For example in the 2004 video (as translated by Reuters), in which bin Laden claims it was his idea to target towers, he calls Mohammad Atta the “overall commander.”
Perhaps it’s time for me to restate my question. We see that bin Laden has claimed to be an accessory to all this. Yet what is the evidence for Osama bin Laden actually being some sort of kingpin or architect, as, I would say, is the prevailing public presumption?
Is the only evidence in that direction the supposed words of KSM, who stayed for four years in a secret CIA prison and afterwards confessed to literally every terrorist act that’s ever happened?
*p.s. I’ve been surprised to learn that the vast majority of bin Laden “tapes” are audio or audio over an unrelated picture. We have little idea if they’re authentic, and it seems bin Laden is never interested in correcting anyone. There are clear cases where his name was falsely attributed, but he’s never made a correction one way or another. This is a sad situation.
This is probably an entirely academic question.
Bin Laden will probably not be found before his death, and even if he is I think it’s pretty safe to assume he won’t get a fair trial anywhere in the United States.
If you had read the 9/11 report I linked to earlier, you’d find that it didn’t take four years for KSM to admit to his and Bin Laden’s role in 9/11. The dates of the reports that include KSM interrogations which implicate Bin Laden include June 27, 2003, July 13, 2003, July 14, 2003, August 18, 2003, November 6, 2003, January 8, 2004, February 19, 2004, and April 3, 2004.
There are also interrogations of Ramzi Binalshibh that implicate Bin Laden as selecting the chief hijackers, as described in reports dated December 10, 2002, March 4, 2003, and March. 31, 2003. The dates of all these reports is found in the footnotes which I have also linked to.
There’s much more information in there if you take the time to read it carefully, but I’m not inclined to spend the effort to pick out the best parts to bring to your attention. Just read the report.
Well, to me, the second clearest acceptance of responsibility and, perhaps, the clearest bin Laden ever comes to admitting over all responsibility is a tape proporting to be him when Moussaoui became the only man convicted in a U.S. Court of responsibility for 9-11.
Let me quickly add that this is an Audio Tape, not a video tape, Al Jazeera says its him and U.S. officials tell the BBC and Washington Post that they have no reason to doubt it is him. So it takes some level credence.
The effort seems to track the truth that the Al Queda operational commanders thought Moussaoui was a clown and loose cannon and the debate within the U.S. circles among some who thought really, he was a terrorist in Training but not a “9-11” conspirator per se.
“The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers—Allah have mercy upon them—with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission.”
–possible bin Laden says
He goes on to say everyone save two at Guantánamo Bay were not involved in 9-11
Really, that’s even worse. It means what we think KSM said comes from when he was actually inside a secret prison, and we know it only by way of the CIA. Or ok, I should take a step back… do these interrogations come with videotapes of the interviews?
This really corroborates the audio tape that jimmy just mentioned. Ok, so let’s say with confidence that bin Laden picked the men who could be trusted. This doesn’t, really, imply he was in charge. Bin Laden, running the camps and having come to know many people in his life, may have just been in a position to be trusted with such a call. As a shoddy example, consider that bin Laden says “I am certain because I was responsible for entrusting these 19 brothers” not “Obviously, I am certain because I know every detail of the operation.”
Anyway, to relate back to the discussion re KSM, take a look at the rest of that audiotape:
[TANGENT]
In deciding, for myself, whether an audio tape really does come from bin Laden, I try to see if it matches the image of the man, which I’ve come to have from his other speeches.
Yup, that’s him.