Home Desktop backgrounds About Attaboy the Archives Links elsewhere Photography Essays & writings Contact info Portfolio

November 12, 2001 — 12 AM

Whom Do You Trust

The Telegraph makes a seemingly inflammatory revelation and no other news sources comment. Curious.

A close read of the article and one key section in particular suggests that an overzealous report and editor at the thickly conservative paper decided the Sunday edition needed some extra zest:

He freely admits to being behind the attacks: “If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically.”

That’s a confession? Sounds more like banal rhetoric to rally the troops. Mere propaganda, really. Not that we would know anything about that.


I think there is little controversy that any video circulated by Bin Laden would be largely for propoganda purposes. But there is no necessary reason to suppose that the content is completly fabricated.

— Noni Mouse | Nov. 12, 2001 — 1 PM

I’m not suggesting that the content was fabricated. I don’t think a reputable newspaper would act so shamelessly. What I’m suggesting is that the Telegraph is attributing meaning to statements where no meaning exists.

The quotations offered in the article only suggest that Bin Laden admitted taking part in unspecified terrorist acts. That’s like McDonalds admitting their food is greasy.

Luke | Nov. 12, 2001 — 1 PM

No, the excitement arose because he kept using the terms ‘I’ and ‘we’ to describe the Sept. 11 plotters. In the past, he’d conspicuously kept it in the third person. Sounds like a confession to me.

— Ian | Nov. 15, 2001 — 5 PM

Previously: Search Me

Subsequently: Bathtubs and Razors

November 2001
the Archives