I think there could be potential in having the full transcript wikified as a collective analysis of the tape? Linking to other names mentioned would be a start to build up the picture. What do you think?
It should be noted that authenticity of these tapes is not certain. --Taw
I've phrased it a bit better. Feel free to tweak. If anyone knows of any alternative translations then please put reference up at the bottom. Anyone actually speak Arabic that can interperate the tapes?
- The US news media, ostensibly independent and free of government control and censorship, has nevertheless largely complied with the request of its government in this matter
Independence of US media is doubtful. See google:Chomsky or any some non-Americans for details. --Taw
- Doesn't "ostensibly" say that? --Dmerrill
- Yes it does; that was why the word "ostensibly" was used.
Should we but the whole transcipt up? Its not copyright?
Even when Afghanistan had a functioning government, it never had anything like copyright law, and was not
a signatory of any international IP convention, either UCC or Berne. The English translations of the tape were done by the US Government, who is not eligible for copyright. Copy at your heart's content. --LDC
I restored some deleted text about the US government's position on the release of bin Laden tapes, because it has been an important issue and has actually been the source of some embarassment to the US government that they, on the one hand, told people not to air any bin Laden tapes, and on the other, they themselves broadcast a tape of bin Laden when it served their own purposes. I also think that the compliance of the US news media in this matter is worth noting.
"Many people, including the U.S. press, continue to be skeptical of the government's rationale for not releasing other tapes, but few have questioned this tape's authenticity." Is just plain not NPOV or true. The tapes reffered to are not the US's to release. The US has not banned the broadcasting of the tapes as far as I'm aware. It seems to me to be a public debate not censorship. Certainly it plays out that way over in the UK where I could watch the whole of the properganda tapes if i wished on Al-Jeezera.
I can't see how Arab groups are critical as the full tapes are usually broadcast in the Arab world.
My 2peneth...
I've tried to edit this for clarity at least.
I don't know what do with this sentence:
- It also comes at a time when the situation in the Middle East is verging on war, a situation in which the
United States has, at times, obtusely shown unwavering support for Israel, and the reaction among Arab counties has been less than chilly.
I haven't the faintest idea what this means, so I can't put it in English. "Obtusely...unwavering"? "Less than chilly"? If its author would care to clarify, it might well belong here. --LDC
- It also comes at a time when the situation in the Middle East is verging on war, a situation in which the..
Well its not NPOV, its also commentry rather than encylopedic fact/analysis. If it belongs anywhere its in /Talk. Whatever people views are we should be striving a an NPOV article which represnts what views are know about the tapes without offering opinion biased one way or the other. -- Alex
What do the double brackets in 'Muhammad ((Atta))' mean? Is the word 'Atta' on the tape, or has it been supplied by an editor? --Matthew Woodcraft
- Words in italics were added by the original translators. -- Eean
So what do the double brackets mean? They seem to be there on the original transcript without an explanation. The article on Mohammed Atta says that the videos identify him, and I worry that this may not be true. --Matthew Woodcraft
Well they are not italliscised in the original source document. But not knowing Arabic myself I can't be sure. There is an interactive copy of the tape on the BBC website, someone could confirm it from that. There is of course the other thing of how many Egyptian Muhammad's where on the hi-jacked flights. -- Alex
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)