Talk:2004 Osama bin Laden video

I imagine sooner or later someone will edit this to ask whether this helps Bush or Kerry, and who Bin Laden wants to help - does he want Kerry because he thinks Kerry is weak, or does he want Bush because he thinks having a hardliner in the White House aids al-Qaeda recruitment?

Anyway, when we start getting into this, I hope we can keep it separated in the article from the currently completely neutral description of the video's content... Evercat 21:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who can tell who he wants to help? Is he using "psychology", or "reverse psychology", or "reason"? If we've accurately summarized the tape ("Bush lies, and read for seven minutes too long on 9/11") one wonders if he's been screening Michael Moore movies... - Nunh-huh 23:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just worried about some POV being introduced into the article, but it hasn't happened. Evercat 23:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At some point perhaps someone will analyze:

[1] to what extent this tape is an attempt to save face for having failed to deliver on his promises of a big terrorist event before the election [2] whether this tape was meant to air on the anniversary of 9/11 but was somehow delayed [3] how in this tape bin Ladin has "revised" his history (or more plainly, lied), claiming he first conceived of an attack on the World Trade Center in response to 1982 attacks in Lebanon, when in fact bin Ladin was not involved with al-Queda before 1986/8 in Afghanistan, did not really consider attacking the U.S. until U.S. trooups were deployed in Saudi Arabia in 1990, and did not associate his efforts with the Lebanon/Israel conflict until after that. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anybody gotten ahold of a translated transcript of the whole video message? I want to read it by myself without any (annoying) journalist comments. Mastgrr 22:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The closest I've seen is excerpts from the BBC that have been added.

What about the English transcript on Al-Jazeera? --Susurrus 01:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the source on the "18 minutes" claim? I seem to recall an Al Jazeera guy saying to the BBC it was about 14 minutes, but had been edited (by Al Jazeera)... Evercat 22:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to "http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/10/29/ladin/index.html" wire story, 'In the last videotape, issued Sept. 10, 2003, bin Laden is seen walking through rocky terrain with his top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, both carrying automatic rifles. In a taped message issued at the same time, bin Laden praises the "great damage to the enemy" on Sept. 11 and mentions five hijackers by name. In December 2001, the Pentagon released a videotape in which bin Laden is shown at a dinner with associates in Afghanistan on Nov. 9, 2001, saying the destruction of the Sept. 11 attacks exceeded even his "optimistic" calculations.' In accordance, I've removed the sentence claiming this is the first video released since 9/11/2001. --Antiframe 22:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It looks like the section was fixed in the time it took me to edit the page. However, it was very strong anti-Bush, with a LOT of raving against Bush/Blair.

What are you apologists for the war criminal/master terrorist Bush?

Well I'm not, but this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Evercat 18:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An "encylopedia" that is happy to propogate Bush distortions and wicked lies as facts?

What Bush distortions do we print "as fact"? Evercat 18:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What you call "RAVINGS" are established facts, put forward by KOFI ANNAN of the UN that the war against Iraq WAS ILLEGAL and by the LANCET a respected British Journal that 100,000 Iraqi's have been massacred by BUSH/BLAIR war against Iraq. When this encylopedia talks about terrorism and Bin Laden these facts have to be stated.

What Kofi Annan has said is indeed mentioned at 2003 Invasion of Iraq, where it's relevant. Evercat 18:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is also relevant here in relation to AL-QAIDA and Bin Laden... Bush used the excuse of the twin towers attack as a pretext for invading Iraq.

If the UN's view is not relevant here then it is equally no more relevant to quote that war criminal/terrorist BUSH here because he has his OWN set of pages (which Wikipedia has locked as it is afraid of seeking the truth!).

The deaths of 100,000 Iraqi's under the pretext of attacking AL-QAIDA is VERY RELEVANT here.

Of course they're not; this is an article about a videotape. Evercat 18:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The translation should be properly attributed, so the validity of the source can be judged by the reader. This segment is from Al Jazeera I think. If someone could find the translator, or at least find proper wiki in-text citation...? —Daelin 22:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence from bin Laden claiming responsibility for September 11th attacks to his condemnation of Bush's response and reasoning for the attack. I think that much better represents the video's content.

The fact that he admits responsibility is a huge deal. I'm putting it back. VeryVerily 22:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The message is principally bin Laden criticizing Bush and explaining motivation for the attacks. Bin Laden spends four paragraphs on Lebanon. And speaking of Bush, bin Laden alleges nepotism, fraud, dictatorship, etc. To say that the most important thing about this article is that the man the entire Western press has considered responsibile for the September 11th attacks has said he's responsible for it is ridiculous and an American POV reading into what you want rather than independent representation of the author's text. (119's text, my mistake not being logged in). --119 22:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just saw an article on CNN about how bin Laden's offer of peace was made not against nation-states, but for each U. S. state. Can someone more learned than I clarify? --cuiusquemodi 22:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)--

You asked this months ago but if you're still interested see this for a discussion. Long story short; it was a curious word choice, but it is unlikely to have been a threat to "red" 'states. --csloat 04:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is POV to describe 1982 as a US invasion of Lebanon. The US was there as a part of a UN mission with France for God's sake. Tfine80 20:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all, but the guy in the video is a short faced chubby guy. He doesn't look like bin laden at all except for the beard and hat. I'm not saying bush made a fake, it could be al queda itself using a doppleganger, but its something that has been addressed a few times with a few tapes. Just a thought for adding to the article.

Take a look a the morphing photo at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html -- it's hard to dismiss the idea that this is a fake video entirely when you can see the problems with your own eyes. --12.15.238.50 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Being a "conspiracy theorist" is okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.109.155 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone added a bizarre aside about the Kandahar tape, which I excised. To note, whoever added it seemed to misunderstand the wording "Bin Laden's first public acknowledgement". Clearly, the Kandahar tape, if even conclusive, was not a public acknowledgment.--Jaurisova6 14:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I buy this - can you source these claims? If we are going to have speculation that bin Laden has been in custody for over a year in here we should also have more legitimate discussions of the meaning of this tape represented, such as the debate over whether there was a threat to the so-called "red states" and about whether bin Laden's sudden use of the word "freedom" in this speech is a turn in his rhetoric or simply an attempt to appeal to American audiences more directly - both claims were represented in legitimate scholarly and news sources, whereas the claim that bin Laden has been in custody and this tape was withheld from the public seems to be only in conspiracy theory websites....--csloat 10:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

In some circles there were speculations... Other observers claimed... some critics have suggested...

I think these phrases mean we need to cite sources. I also question the notability and relevance of some of these observations. I'm removing the paragraphs pending citation, at least. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 13:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Indeed speculations need attribution as such. FFR, a good way to "remove" questionable material from an article is to hide it <!-- inbetween these-->. Saves the trouble of having to reinsert. Sinreg, ;) -Ste|vertigo 14:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is an article about a "2004 Osama bin Laden Video". What video? Is there a copy of the video we can download? Is there video from Al Jazeera? What physical evidence is there?

TruthSeeker1234 17:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is the link on the page: [1]. Not sure if that's what you are looking for?--Bill 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The link you provided appears to be a 5:38 audio file. Is there something wrong with my media player? Is this a video?TruthSeeker1234 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is a video and plays on Windows Media Player, but as you pointed out, its only 5:38 long.--Bill 23:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Got it to play in WMP, thanks. Wow, the video is tiny. Is there any larger version of the video? The still picture in the article is of a much better resolution. I'm just trying to make sense of all the conflicting information. The guy in the 2001 video is clearly not bin Laden. I've seen a comparison of the 2004 video to other pictures of bin Laden, and it appears that this is not actually bin Laden either, but I was really hoping for a better quality image before I made up my mind. If he is an imposter, it's a better match than the 2001 effort. TruthSeeker1234 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I did some original research (strictly verbotten!). I did a photoshop study similar to the morphing one found here.[2] I used 2 different pictures. Same result. This guy's nose is different than Osama's. Maybe he had a nose job? We could write a paragraph indicating that WhatReallyHappened.com calls this video a fake, but TomHarrison would just delete it.

Anybody else think this video is a fake? What about the 2001 confession video? Anybody else think that one's a fake? Just curious.

TruthSeeker1234 03:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I thought I heard someone in the background say, "Pull it!" in Estonian. Anybody else hear that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The wall in the background is beige. That's the same color as the walls in the Abu-Ghraib pictures.--DCAnderson 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just added a referenced 'criticisms of the tape' section, and it was almost immediately deleted, with the person responsible User:Tom_harrison quite clearly lying on the page history section, and claiming it was 'original research.' Is a quote from Walker Cronkite on CNN Larry King Live 'original research'? I will be putting an NPOV tag on the page, and will seek moderator arbitration if I am not allowed to cite CNN transcripts from notable public figures. I might also note that the tape itself is not referenced, coming from an unknown anonymous origin, unlike the CNN transcript. Timharwoodx 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whatreallyhappened.com is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks. "It is disputed whether the tape was real, or a political stunt from the Republican party, designed to secure the re-election of George Bush." Besides lack of attribution, this gives undue weight to a fringe view. "It was too convenient. The timing seemed designed to offer maximum advantage to George Bush just before the election." This sounds like it is being presented as a matter of objective fact, rather than as the opinion of a fringe minority. To the extent the material recently added is supported by any citations at all, it is original research: a synthesis of opinion and factoids that serves to advance a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are lying AGAIN. The quote was taken from Larry King live. May I further remind the user User:Tom_harrison, that the guiding light behind WIKi content is Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've now added the NPOV tag, and I want clarification on why externally referenced criticisms of this tape are not allowed. This appears to be a clear cut violation of standing WIKI terms on verifiablity. The video tape of Osama is of course, itself not verifiable, because its source is unknown and anonymous. I fail to see this fact fully reflected in the article either. Adding to my NPOV concerns. You either work for the FBI, or you just don't understand the WIKi content rules. Timharwoodx 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see the bold letters in the CNN transcript. How did you decide which part to emphasize? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Becuase thats the part which is the 'criticism of the tape.' Obvious, I would have thought, but I don't mind if you want to remove the bold. Timharwoodx 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

In a CNN interview with Larry King Walter Cronkite expressed these sentiments:

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.[3]

Thats my proposed edit which is presently being blocked by User:Tom_harrison. Can someone tell my why that can not be inserted? Unlike the video tape (not verifiable), it is externally verfiable Timharwoodx 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most likely because the transcript is missing the the chuckle that Walter Cronkite made during the Karl Rove section. This was a semi-joke playing on his belief that the timing of the release of the video was orchestrated, not that Karl Rove and OBL were communicating and that OBL made a video at Karl Rove's request.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Go educate yourself. Watch Loose Change Second Edition - Recut. The most watched internet-only film of all time.

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

See also Alex Jones Terrorstorm. An introduction to US government sponsored 'false flag' terror operations. The American government admits in its own declassified documents it considers the mass murder of American civilians acceptable, if it advances long term policy goals i.e. see Operation_Northwoods - an entry in the WIKIPEDIA itself. If the Joint Chiefs of Staff were willing to kill Americans in the 1960s, why not in 2001? Thats from their own documents - of course.

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

From Freedom to Fascism - Aaron Russo.

• http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

The videos were fake, 9/11 was staged. I'm just sorry the WIKI 'thought police' do such a good job at suppressing the truth. Osama in 2004 had not a single grey hair more than in 2001. Thats simply absurd. The voice print analysis also failed, along with the facial analysis. The tape was a Karl Rove stunt, and your interpretation of the chuckle has no basis in fact. I rather think Walter was laughing at how amazingly gullible the American public really is. They shove out half baked incompetent fakes, any halfwit could debunk in 5 minutes flat, and 360m Americans fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Thats what he is laughing at. To the political insiders, the game of manipulation is 'obvious.'

I still find it disappointing at externally verifiable quote from a known public figure could not be allowed into the WIKI on this matter, when it represents the suspicions of so many millions of people around the world (as seen in Loose change viewing figures). The WIKI has a duty to represent the views of its community (to a certain extent) but in this respect, it seems to fail. The part of the community thats wants the truth about 9/11 seems to get stomped on every time. Timharwoodx 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

See WP:NPOV, from a certain perspective the quote might be seen as having a point of view. Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 10:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Changing...

"The video is reported to be 18 minutes in length, although bin Laden only speaks for 14 minutes 39 seconds [1] and only short excerpts of it have been broadcast so far. However, Al Jazeera released a transcript of the complete tape on November 1, 2004" to "The video is reported to be 18 minutes in length; Osama bin Laden speaks for 14 minutes 39 seconds. Al Jazeera released a transcript of the complete tape on November 1, 2004. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slipgrid (talk • contribs) 20:59, August 22, 2006.

• Partially on-topic, I do wish that Aljazeera would specify who actually did translations of their English transitions.

Original text (from transcript mentioned above [4]

Translated to English text of same text [5]

I am in the process of compiling links on a sub-user page for a user-page reference for transcripts/videos of OBL (contested or not) and would appreciate additions of such links to my talk page so I can add them to a sub-page soon. I would also be adding notes about the actual length of OBL's inclusion in those videos/transcripts.

I am adding a talk page section at the bottom of my TALK for contributions.

Thanks in advance and thank you for your contributions, -- That Guy, From That Show! 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

frame|a still of 2004 Osama bin Laden video

frame|bin Laden

— Xiutwel (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, for Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy, clause 9 it is not permissible to show these pictures here on the talk page. You can compare the two images here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video&oldid=77162721#reasonable_doubt.3F /&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

or here:

• http://home.planet.nl/~69-paranoid/images/fake-to-real.gif
  • http://home.planet.nl/~69-paranoid /&#151; Xiutwel (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see much room for doubt. If there is doubt, please provide published sources that register such doubt rather than your own suspicions, which are at best WP:NOR.--csloat 23:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with csloat and propose to delete the accuracy-tag. Otto 07:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Judge yourself: left: Tape’s ‘Ben Laden’ and right: Ben Laden on Aljazeerah"

• http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01012002/0101200242.htm

— Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you read this article yourself? It doesn't say it isn't bin Laden on the tape. In so far it merely confirms the authenticity. The Cairo scholar Ahmad Rashidi says that it is circumstantial, but not sufficient evidence for the responsibility of bin Laden. The Sydney scholar John Gibbon suggests the possibility of tampering the audiotape, but doesn't assert that this is the case. Otto 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would say that the quote: "Judge yourself: left: Tape’s ‘Ben Laden’ and right: Ben Laden on Aljazeerah" would indicate some doubt? The magazine does not dare to take a final stance, yes or no, but expressed doubt as to the identity of the image. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Bush says those who claim the videotape is a fake are just making excuses for a man the president says is "evil."[6]

And here someone who claims the 'fake' is debunked:

• http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/001006.html

Of course, if you just look around for images of Osama bin Laden, you'll quickly realize what's going on. For example, here's another photo from the same "fake" videotape:

Suddenly, the images look a bit more similar. The comparison becomes even clearer when you compare other known images of OBL to these:

And a reponse:

Tim is the one who is fixating on one or two frames (if any frame has been photoshopped, it's [too-]clearly http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/images/obl/Dec13VideoOsama.jpg ). Just watch the video! Which 911blimp provides. And which supports the frames 911blimp displays on its page. (1 rather obvious difference: Osama's face is widest at the eyes while the imposter's is widest at the cheeks.)

— Xiutwel (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggest wording like: "generally believed to be authentic" should be included in the article. Just to show that doubts are possible. I don't think wiki should take a stand on the authenticity. It's not our job. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

to consider: On 29 October 2004, at 21:00 UTC, the Arab television network, Al Jazeera, broadcast excerpts from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States, in which he accepted responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, (quoting from the article).

Why is this sentence even here, "accepted responsibility", if there was no doubt about earlier video's? Everybody should be convinced by earlier "admissions" three years before? If earlier video's are doubtful, what makes this one different? If there is doubt, we should frankly express it, along with who doubts, why, and who does not. Simple: just show the facts, and let's not work out of beliefs. I have my own beliefs about 911, but they change daily; the facts however do not change. Only new ones emerge. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just for information, The Guardian doubts this 2003 tape: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1040347,00.html — Xiutwel (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Guardian doubts what about the tape, exactly? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tommy was Splitting hairs ad absurdum 5 years ago. "The Guardian", as in "This article from the guardian airs/displays doubts about the the tape: here are _our_ sources": "But a French terrorism expert cautioned yesterday against taking the video at face value. Roland Jacquard, head of the International Observatory on Terrorism based in Paris, told French radio that it was mostly a collection of old footage and soundtracks which have been aired."

Gee, it's hard to get through when semantics have to be explained and agreed upon for any rational adult communication to even be remotely possible to achieve."Go figure".Nunamiut (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's been eight years, and the authenticity of the tape has not been included in this article. There should be viewpoints on this. --George Ho (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply