NY Times vs. Washington Post

[Guerilla poster]

Why are the translations of OBL's speech so different?

the Slate article below references this. But the word for word translations are much different. Seems strange. Also, the mention of Palestine and Israel was cut down in the Times version. hmm.

http://slate.msn.com/code/kausfiles/kausfiles.asp?Show=10/8/2001&idMessage=8408

[Anonymous]

Great article.

The Times is run by Jews who want everyone to believe Americans would be under attack regardless of Israel. A disgusting example of the press twisting the truth to meet personal goals. At least the Slate has the guts to report on this.

[G. Ringo]

Does someone have the text and the translations?

[Huki]

VOR: America would be under attack regardless of Israel. It does not take a genius to see this.

[Anonymous]

Whatever your belief is on this issue, you can't misquote people to promote that belief. Especially if you're part of the press.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-11 23:19 ]</font>

[alex]

And the NYT is better than the Post or the Daily news, since it doesn't leave your hands all inky!

[Botsy]

Not to mention that the Post and Daily News are just daily tabloids that look like newspapers.

[Extreme Extremist]

On 2001-10-11 22:41, Huki wrote:
VOR: America would be under attack regardless of Israel. It does not take a genius to see this.

Hey Huki, read this: http://www.supplysideinvestor.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1670

[Huki]

Am I supposed to change my mind now because someone has a different opinion?

[G. Ringo]

Do you really believe that the Gulf War, which brought American troops to Saudi Arabia and the embargo to Iraq, had anything to do with the defense of Israel?

[Laocoön]

I watched Brit Hume on Fox News the other day when they were talking about bin Laden's videotape. I guess the line at Fox is that the phrase, "which of course is ridiculous," or something equivalent, is to follow every mention of the possibility that our Israel policy might have had something to do with the September 11 attacks. There were easily four such combinations in the few minutes that they were talking about the videotape, and, maybe I was imagining it, but I think the broadcasters would turn ever-so-slightly toward the camera before the follow-up comment: "...so here he says that the Palestine situation is one of the reasons for the attack, (turn) which of course is ridiculous."

Also amusing are the rationalizations based on timing: the planning for the attacks began before the latest intifada, before the founding of the State of Israel, before the birth of Abraham -- there can be no connection with the US's Israeli policy.

My answer to Gregor's question is that, no, the Gulf War was not directly related to the US's Israel policy. The writer of EE's linked letter to the editor was pretty loopy about that. I can't say whether or not Israel has anything to do with the embargo on Iraq -- I can't think of any particular reason that it would, but then again the embargo on Iraq seems so indefensible that there must be SOME bizarre reason for it, and that bizarre reason may originate from Israel just as easily as from US "concerns." The embargo, the Gulf War, and the troops in Saudi Arabia are, however, all symptomatic of the American attitude that we have the right to interfere and to dictate in Middle Eastern affairs, and that attitude is exemplified by our Israel policy.

My answer to phpBB's question is that Israel is essentially a garrison state, and the US makes an easier target to the extent that the dilution of the effect on Israel of an attack is offset.

While I'm on the Israel situation (sort of), some people (most notably EB here, and maybe most notably Norman Podheretz, generally) have the opinion that democratization of Arab states is the path to Middle East peace because "democracies don't choose to go to war."

Unfortunately, I think this is poppycock, and I've been trying to think of good counterexamples. I should have started thinking closer to home, because I think the two best examples of a democracy choosing to go to war are the US in the Mexican-American War and again in the Spanish-American War. In both of these, the American public, over issues much less important to us than Palestine is to the Arabs, were fantastically eager to go to war. Both were also, by my estimation, wars of conquest, and not wars of prevention.

So, again, I think that Israel pretty clearly benefits from having dictatorships for all of its Arab neighbors. I'm not sure if the policymakers who argue otherwise merely disagree with me (fools!) or if they are cynically making the argument to maintain the line that "support of Israel is support of democracy" (liars!).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-13 08:51 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

It might make sense if Mike Tyson is asleep and I'm not. Or if you realized that Mike Tyson would probably figure he could fairly easily beat you in by boxing, while I'd go for your kneecaps and your eyes. Or if you realized that Mike Tyson is in training for a title fight, and can't afford an injury in a pointless brawl, while you'd have my undivided attention if you attacked me.

[Extreme Extremist]

On 2001-10-12 12:50, Huki wrote:
Am I supposed to change my mind now because someone has a different opinion?

No I just wanted to show you that your opinion of people that don't agree with you is silly. Many intelligent, insightful, and well-informed people on this issue know that Israel is, if not the only reason, one of the reasons behind muslim and middle eastern anger towards the United States. To ignore this fact is stupid and quite dangerous.

[E. Blackadder]

Lao, how much of the American public's appetite was because of a press that played fast and loose with the facts? I don't have a sense for that.

Of course I am referring to William Randolph (get me the pictures and I'll get you a war) Hearst.

[break for web-based review ]

But it seems upon review of the facts that the US was at least nominally helping end the last vestiges of Spanish colonialism. And it must be noted that Spanish democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries was extrordinarily fragile.

[ anothe break ]

And do I not recall that your nieces are in Texas? All things equal (and not calling your patriotism in question), would you prefer that they live in Texas as part of the US or in Texas as part of Mexico?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-13 17:24 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-13 17:00, E. Blackadder wrote:
Lao, how much of the American public's appetite was because of a press that played fast and loose with the facts? I don't have a sense for that.


Well, first, are you assuming not only that Arab states would become democratic but also that, unlike the rest of the democratic world, they will have a press that would not stoop to sensationalism?

But, more to the point, I think the evidence is fairly strong that both the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War were the result of a newly arrived military readiness encountering a political philosophy that called upon the use of that military readiness (maybe military readiness gives rise to such philosophies... another discussion). In the Mexican-American War, West Point was just starting to crank out graduates, who were eager to test their mettle, and the notion of "Manifest Destiny" demanded that we conquer a big chunk of North America. In the Spanish-American War, we were finally at the point where we could think of ourselves as a world power, and the theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan about the Great Powers of the world (and how to be one) demanded that we have colonies around the world, and collapsing Spain seem a good source for them. T. Roosevelt (Secretary of Navy and then Rough Rider) was a big Mahan fan, and Mahan for a long time dominated the US Navy's thinking, in particular.

For the Arabs, there is no lack of political philosophies that point toward a reconquest of Palestine, and if the military ability to accomplish it comes along, I think a populist government would jump at it more quickly than an authoritarian state. Nasser provides the example, but moreover I think that a populist movement reconquering Palestine would be able to count on so much support from other Arab states' people that no nation that accomplished it would have to worry too much about the other states snatching the prize from them. If, on the other hand, Syria's dictatorship (for example) managed to reconquer Palestine, Egypt and Iraq and maybe even Jordan would be tempted to occupy a war-weakened Syria "for security purposes."


But it seems upon review of the facts that the US was at least nominally helping end the last vestiges of Spanish colonialism. And it must be noted that Spanish democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries was extrordinarily fragile.


I'm not refering to Spanish democracy, and while we were nominally ending Spanish colonialism, it was to replace it with American colonialism and not with liberty.


And do I not recall that your nieces are in Texas? All things equal (and not calling your patriotism in question), would you prefer that they live in Texas as part of the US or in Texas as part of Mexico?


I would guess that if Texas had remained part of Mexico, then the series of events that took my nieces' grandparents and then parents from Europe and into North America would have stopped in Louisiana or Arkansas instead of in Texas.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-13 20:54 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

He doesn't have to answer EB's question! I'm Mike Tyson! How dare you challenge me with your primitive skills!

[Anonymous]

Was it a good fight?

[E. Blackadder]

Well, first, are you assuming not only that Arab states would become democratic but also that, unlike the rest of the democratic world, they will have a press that would not stoop to sensationalism?

There's a big difference between sensationalism and rampant lies, is there not?


For the Arabs, there is no lack of political philosophies that point toward a reconquest of Palestine, and if the military ability to accomplish it comes along...

...If, on the other hand, Syria's dictatorship (for example) managed to reconquer Palestine, Egypt and Iraq and maybe even Jordan would be tempted to occupy a war-weakened Syria "for security purposes."


So given your beliefs, even if the Palestinians win in their struggle, actual relief from war is far from certain for the Palestinians [for they will need help, and the only nations who will actively help are dictatorships.] That's sad.

But better to be conquered by other Arabs than by the Zionists, eh?



I would guess that if Texas had remained part of Mexico, then the series of events that took my nieces' grandparents and then parents from Europe and into North America would have stopped in Louisiana or Arkansas instead of in Texas.


C'mon Lao, you ask some pretty hard questions of me. The least you can do is not to duck something this easy. Or have you been taking boxing lessons?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-14 00:20 ]</font>

[independent]

This thread is more of the "Why do They Hate Us?" topic. Is it just Israel, or envy, or what?

Newsweek had a cover story with that title this week. It seems as plausible as anything I've read.

In the writer's view: At the heart of the matter, Arab governments aren't providing "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to their subjects. They aren't even making progress in that direction. Many are going backward.

The church, and particularly the Muslim fundamentalist organizatons, are providing some of the basic social services such as of charity and education that we would expect from government.

The US is seen as a prop that's holding up these corrupt governments. The only US interest in most of the Arab world is a steady supply of cheap oil - it will support anyone who can supply that. It is also the symbol of all the materialistic temptations that divert the leaders and the wealthy (usually the same people) from caring for their countrymen.

Israel is the worst case of Western colonialism - the West stole the Palestinian's land in order to unload its problem with the Jews. Israel's economic success is a glaring contrast to the Arab's failures. Israel clearly gets lots of support from the US.

Finally, they believe that these attacks will really get the US to pull out of their side of the world.

(I've noticed that Osama has said that the US pulled out of Somalia after only 19 deaths, and out of Lebanon after just a couple successful bombings.)

I find this discouraging. We might think this worldview is nonsense, the result of propaganda in countries where there's nothing resembling a "free exchange of facts and opinions". A clear case of people who can't believe that they might be responsible for their own problems.

Or we might say that there's a kernal of truth in that view.

Either way, it's what millions of young people believe. Among the millions, there are likely to be a few hundred who will become suicide bombers.

If we can't find a way to change most of those minds, this will be a very long war. Unfortunately, the writer seemed better at describing the problem than at finding solutions.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-14 00:18, E. Blackadder wrote:
There's a big difference between sensationalism and rampant lies, is there not?


Yes, but stirring up an insistance for the reconquest of Palestine in a hypothetical Arab democracy would at most require sensationalism.


So given your beliefs, even if the Palestinians win in their struggle, actual relief from war is far from certain for the Palestinians [for they will need help, and the only nations who will actively help are dictatorships.] That's sad.


No. If the Palestinians managed it, it would in all likelihood be through a populist effort, and the dictatorships would raise some trouble among their own people if they moved in. Maybe not enough trouble to keep them from doing it, but some. But yes, the whole situation is sad.


But better to be conquered by other Arabs than by the Zionists, eh?


Some people hold out the possibility of democracy in the Arab states. When it has suited your argument, you have even been one of these people. In Israel, however, Arabs will never be better than second class citizens.


C'mon Lao, you ask some pretty hard questions of me. The least you can do is not to duck something this easy. Or have you been taking boxing lessons?


As you should know very well, I don't duck questions, Grasshopper. I am happy that my nieces live under the US system rather than under the Mexican system.