MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
A vote for Kerry guarantees your safety!!!
- Thread starter Kayz
- Start date
I wonder why the "media" didn't show all of the tape?
The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."
The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."
Interesting. If that is correct, the speech was a much more direct attempt to influence the election than has been reported.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404
The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to "each U.S. state," designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" (which means "each U.S. state") to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."
The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: "This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama Bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy. By this characterization, Sheikh Osama wants to drive a wedge in the American body, to weaken it, and he wants to divide the American people itself between enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and those who fight for us, so that he doesn't treat all American people as if they're the same. This letter will have great implications inside the American society, part of which are connected to the American elections, and part of which are connected to what will come after the elections."
Interesting. If that is correct, the speech was a much more direct attempt to influence the election than has been reported.
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Middle East Media Research Institute[/font]Kayz said:
[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) states that it explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. MEMRI, founded in 1998 as a 501 (c)3 organization, says that its purpose is to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East. With branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center, MEMRIs research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian. (1)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]The main subjects of its research and translations are the following: jihad and terrorism, U.S. and Middle East, reform in the Arab and Muslim world, Arab-Israeli conflict, inter-Arab relations, economic studies, and Arab anti-Semitism.(2) MEMRIs slogan, Bridging the Language Gap Between the Middle East and the West, does not convey the centers stridently Zionist and anti-Arab political bias. Until recently MEMRI was more forthcoming about its political orientation in its self-description and staff profiles on its website. Currently it has no information about its staff, board of directors, or funding on its website. Three weeks after September 11, 2001, MEMRI also deleted the following sentence from its mission statement on its About Us page: In its research, the institute puts emphasis on the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel. (3) (4)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]The two founders, Meyrav Wurmser and Yigal Carmon, are right-wing Zionists. Carmon is the longtime president, while Wurmer left her position as executive director at MEMRI in early 2002 to direct the Center of Middle East Studies at the Hudson Institute. (2) Steven Stalinsky has been MEMRIs executive director since Wurmsers departure. Oliver Revell serves without compensation as a member of MEMRIs board of directors, together with Carmon and Stalinsky. In 2001 MEMRI operated on a budget approaching $1.8 million. (5) Its staff has increased dramatically since its founding in February 1998, from six to more than thirty. (6)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]As an indirect result of the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the subsequent war on terrorism by the Bush administration, MEMRI has gained public prominence as a source of news and analysis about the Muslim world. Its translated articles and commentary by its own staff are routinely cited in national media in the United States, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times. Analysis by MEMRI staff and officers is frequently published by right-wing and neoconservative media outlets such as National Review, Fox News, Commentary, and the Weekly Standard. It is also a media outlet of choice for such right-wing and Zionist organizations the Center for Security Policy, Middle East Forum, and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Both critics and supporters of MEMRI note its increasing influence in shaping perceptions of the Middle East. Its translations and reports are distributed without charge, according to MEMRI, to congresspersons, congressional staff, policy makers, journalists, academics, and interested parties. (6)[/size][/font]
[size=-1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Origins, History, and Influence[/font][/size]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]To understand the political mission, it is helpful to examine the politics and origins of its cofounders Yigal Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser. Carmon is a reserve colonel in the Israeli Defense Forces, having served in the IDF/Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988. In that capacity, Carmon, who was born in Romania, was Acting Hear of the Civil Administration in the West Bank from 1977 to 1982. He served as counterterrorism adviser to premiers Shamir and Menachem Begin from 1988 to 1993. In 1991 and 1992 Carmon was a senior member of the Israeli Delegation to peace negotiations with Syria in Madrid and Washington. (4)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Wurmser, an Israeli-born analyst of Middle East affairs, received her Ph.D. from George Washington University in Washington, D.C. where she wrote on Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement. (4) According to Arab Media Watch, Jabotinsky brokered the marriage between Zionism and fascism. (3) Wurmser, who has taught at Johns Hopkins University and the United States Naval Academy, and her husband David Wurmser are central figures in the right-wings web of Middle East policy institutes. According to the Hudson Institute, Through her work at MEMRI [she] helped to educate policymakers about the Palestinian Authority two-track approach to 'negotiating peace' with Israel: calling for peace in the English press and with western policymakers while inciting hatred and violence through official Arab language media." (7) Before joining the Bush II administration as a State Department policy adviser under John Bolton, her husband David Wurmser was an AEI scholar and associate of the Middle East Forum (MEF). [/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Numerous current or former MEMRI staff are Israelis, including Yotham Feldner, MEMRIs director of media analysis. (6) Like Carmon, Feldner worked in military intelligence while serving with the Israeli Defense Forces. Another MEMRI staff member, Aluma Solnik, also worked in military intelligence before joining MEMRI. Other MEMRI staff come to the organization from various Zionist and Israeli organizations, including the World Zionist Organization.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]According to one profile of MEMRI, the institute is one of the few sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian; it thus provides a view into Arab and Iranian media that is often otherwise unavailable to English speakers that are not literate in those languages. The technical accuracy of its translations is rarely disputed. However, the extent to which its selection is contextual or representative of Arab/Iranian media is very often disputed, particularly in view of its ties with Israel. (6)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]MEMRI, which describes itself as objective and independent, has gained a reputation for cherry-picking the most virulent, anti-Israel and anti-U.S. reports and commentary from the Arab media. (8) (9) (10)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]A former CIA counterintelligence official, Vincent Cannistraro, said that they [MEMRI} are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud. They simply don't present the whole picture. (9) In an article titled Selective MEMRI, Brian Whitaker of the Guardian (London) observed: Evidence from MEMRI's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. (11) Ali Abunimah, vice-president of the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network, cautions that there are sounder voices in the Arab and Muslim communities who try to challenge these kinds of statements, and that some of the language about Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. and Israeli press is equally vile. Yet, he added, that a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment is indeed mixed with anti-Semitic rhetoric imported from the West. (12)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]Although critics are more concerned with the selectivity of MEMRIs translations rather than their accuracy, instances of MEMRIs political bias affecting the accuracy of its translations have on occasion been cited. The Guardians Brian Whitaker took MEMRIs president to task for mistranslating a question that included an implied criticism of Israel. The question was "How do you deal with the Jews who are besieging al-Aqsa and are scattered around it?" But MEMRI translated this as: "How do you feel about the Jews?" (13)[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]At the same time that MEMRI circulates the most inflammatory comments found in the Arab media, its pro-Israel and pro-Likud positions are equally evident. Carmon says that MEMRI is eager to highlight the role of the good guys in the Middle East--the democrats, or near democrats; the liberals, or near liberals--anyone who evinces the slightest interest in reform. According to an adulatory report on MEMRI in the right-wing magazine National Review, Independence and objectivity are matters of pride here. Staffers work virtually around the clock, with an almost missionary spirit, feeling that their work is vital, that their moment is now. (14)[/size][/font]
[size=-1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Funding[/font][/size] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]MEMRI states that it does not accept government funding and that it relies on 250 private donors. (14) Among these private donors is the right-wing Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, which gave MEMRI $100,000 in the 1999-2000 period. (15) Another foundation that supports MEMRI is the Ronald & Mary Ann Lachman Foundation.[/size][/font]
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/memri.php
Admin...I'm at work and just skimmed over that quickly as I'm busy as hell. But, are you trying to show that they are a biased group whose goal in this instance would be to make the middle east terrorists look bad??/ Am I reading into that correctly??
If so, what is your point?? CNN, NBC, Fox all ran stories on this and reported this "mis-translation". They even had other "experts" on who agreed with MEMRI assessment.
But, I don't speak Arabic, so who knows.
If so, what is your point?? CNN, NBC, Fox all ran stories on this and reported this "mis-translation". They even had other "experts" on who agreed with MEMRI assessment.
But, I don't speak Arabic, so who knows.
I can't see how anyone would change their votes.
I don't think Osama has any clout with US voters.
IF anything, they will do the opposite. For example, there was a poll asking people what they would be inclined to do if, for example, Paris Hilton endorsed Bush. A very large percentage said they would vote for Bush's opponent as a result. Ditto for certain celebrity Kerry endorsements.
I don't think Osama has any clout with US voters.
IF anything, they will do the opposite. For example, there was a poll asking people what they would be inclined to do if, for example, Paris Hilton endorsed Bush. A very large percentage said they would vote for Bush's opponent as a result. Ditto for certain celebrity Kerry endorsements.
No, my point is that everyone has there biases. As a result, the "truth" is difficult to determine. I don't think anyone should take any report at face value, especially in politics.Kayz said:
administrator said:
Okay, gotcha. I agree, everyone has their agenda they need to get across. But when it comes to translation, there is minimal room for error. I guess one could interpret it anyway they like, but the actual translation can only take so many forms.
Besides, I just posted that for the sake of debate. It was a little slow in here yesterday, so I thought I'd spice things up a bit. I don't think anyone actually give a fuck what Bin Laden has to say.
Ditto. I have no idea whether the MEMRI translation is accurate. Not that it should matter to a voter. But everyone has their agenda. And I think it is good to know everyone's agenda/bias when reading a report, etc.Kayz said:
administrator said:
Very true...in fact, I am biased towards Bush, which is why I posted that (and to get some people in here thinking and riled up).
Likewise, you and others are biased AGAINST Bush, so you are more likely to post info. that puts Bush in a negative light. It's just human nature.
Witness biblical translations. It's amazing that even today, 'scholars' find alleged errors in the translation that may affect the interpretation.Kayz said:
Of course like you said, there can be an incredible number of interpretations, some of which seem far-fetched but adherents fiercely believe.
I know. The fact that it was about Bin Laden is irrelevant. What I found interesting was the way the media reports it. Why did the first few days of news coverage emphasize the fact that Bin Laden said it "didn't matter" who won the election. Now, there are indications he may have "favored" one candidate. Which bias do you believe if you want the truth?Kayz said:
You should note that MEMRI isn't criticized very often for their translations. But for their "cherry-picking" of certain issues and points.
scientificTheGreat
New Member
So I guess that I am to live in fear now because I live in texas and I know my state will swing red. Give me a break, what happened to all the Afghans that were going to be shot at the polls? They voted and they lived, hmmmm sounds to me like obl can take his pussy ass threats and shove them right up his ass. over 20 million afghans voted even when they were told theyw ould be shot at the polls. You think I am going to let someone stand in the way of my rights? Go fuck yoursef OBL, your evil agenda will not stop me from being free I promise you that.
Fat Freddy
New Member
Honestly, I didn't even bother reading the MEMRI article and don't know why anyone else would after reading their description.
A bunch of right-wing Zionists create a site to aid in the translation of the Muslim world and I'm supposed to believe a single word they write?
Not in this lifetime.
A bunch of right-wing Zionists create a site to aid in the translation of the Muslim world and I'm supposed to believe a single word they write?
Not in this lifetime.
