Wednesday, August 23, 2006

my head does not hurt in a good way

* damien:
"I'm distracted at the moment (so these are rough notes) but there's a new article out on the provenance of the Osama 9/11 confession video from Maher Osseiran

Key pts:

* It was produced on Sept 26 not Nov 9 as alleged by DOD (and not in Kandahar as claimed but in a small village in Ghazni province where a US helicopter had crashed on Nov 2 - its wreckage showed up in the video).map

* Only 35 mins of tape was released from 2-3 hrs of material obtained from two video sources.

*There are some village and helicopter debris scenes that show signs of electronic transmission before ending up on the camera that was allegedly used to video bin Laden's confession.

* the poor quality [final tape] [was attributed] to an amateur videographer who ran out of tape while taping Bin Laden, rewound the tape, and recorded the rest of the Bin Laden visit over earlier footage of a US Special Forces helicopter that crashed in bad weather on November 2.

*This additional, superimposed footage of the actual bin Laden confession was taken a by a different person to whoever shot the village and debris footage.

* The resulting tape was obtained as part of a two stage sting involving (1) getting a video confession from bin Laden (succesful), and (2) capturing him (unsuccesful - bad weather).

The optimum setting to capture Bin Laden on September 26, the date of the taping, when the controllers of the operation had 3 to 4 days advance notice of the meeting, 12 to 24 hours advance notice of its location and where Bin Laden was to spend at least 4 hours, was squandered and Bin Laden’s capture was deferred to a future visit to his family in that village.

The primary objective of a two-part sting was to tape Bin Laden confessing to his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the second part of the sting was to capture him.

Once this two-part scheme started unraveling, these misplaced priorities left the commander in chief with the fruits of the better-scripted first part: Bin Laden boasting tape at a dinner meeting to a paraplegic visitor named Khaled al-Harbi.

The second part whose objective was his capture failed due to a simple case of bad weather.

*The operation was a repackaged version of an original joint Pakistan-US operation to capture bin Laden which was reported by UPI on 17 Aug 2001.

* Newspapers who've examined it say it the Osama in it is real. But this pudgy image noted by conspiracy theorists stands in marked contrast to other before and after photos of bin Laden so...??? editing?... maybe he did confess after all....

It appears, at best, that the US blew an excellent chance to capture bin Laden by staging a more complex operation designed to elicit a 9/11 confession. The more sinister interpretation is that they got exactly what they wanted: a confession coup and a fugitive bin Laden who could continue to be demonised and - perhaps, more importantly - wouldn't be around to answer too many embarassing questions. By default, or otherwise, they let him get away.

Key pt:

Osseiran gives good reasons why the bin Laden confession was video taped on Sept 26, yet it ended up superimposed over video of helicopter debris that the DOD admits crashed on Nov 2.
* me :
"my head hurts."
* damien:
"Lukery, I hope your head hurts in a good way. I often try to present potted versions of detailed longer articles in order to save people the legwork. Sometimes condensing the material in this way is helpful, other times it all becomes a bit impenetrable. People slash their way through my thickets of over-loaded syntax festooned with scores of facts they will never remember. That's the price you pay, I suppose. The alternative is to let people wander aimlessly across the parched savannah of the original article, desperately seeking a coherent narrative or a cup of cool meaningfulness.

-but then if I'd have nothing to say, would I? My head hurt reading the original - and it hurts now reading my own version. But that's you pay for refusing to ban me :)"
ummm - no. my head does not hurt in a good way.

as for banning you - given that we live in a democracy and all - i'll leave it up to the GSF audience. all those who want damien banned, say 'I'


lukery said...


oldschool said...


profmarcus said...

my head hurts too, but not from the content as much as from the obfuscating verbiage... i simply don't have the patience to treat each sentence like a piece of code that needs to be deciphered... particularly if material is extracted and condensed, it needs to be highly and efficiently readable... that's one of the reasons (among others) that i don't often follow the posters on tpm cafe who seem to measure word count rather than clarity...

damien said...

Apologies on that one Profmarcus. The original article contains some important material, but it's lengthy and contradictory in places. What may be best is to post summaries elsewhere and point to both the original article and the summary. There's often not the time to read all the articles we'd like to. In this case it was the nature of the material itself -detailed and contradictory in places - that made things difficult. Thanks for your thoughts.

LeeB said...

Damien rocks. Let 'im stay. :-)

Don said...

all those who want damien banned, say 'I'

Nay, nay, and "Hell nay!"!

rimone said...

Damien fuckin' stays.

i. have. spoken. :-)