Talk:Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks
|
|
The word "produced" is technically correct. However, the broad interpretation associated with its application, in this context, may warrant reconsideration of its use. There may be another word which could lend greater meaning to the author's intention when offered in conjunction with the following addendum:
"Perhaps it should be noted that the "filmed reports of celebrations on the West Bank" later was said to have been produced. A reporter from Die Stern (I think) even found and interviewed the woman appearing on the film sequence. // Liftarn 13:50 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)"
If I am fortunate to have properly interpreted the author's intent, I would ask the following word be considered in place of "produced"... fabricated.
The key word "produce" was used in conjunction with so-called news reports of a celebration(s). It may be fair to conjecture, the author meant to convey the idea a "fabrication" was at play by the media.
The differentiation may be significant in as much as the reader is left to believe the word "produce" properly describes the situation. In my view, this may be grossly inadequate if one wishes to properly depict the circumstances surrounding the manner in which the news of the celebration was obtained and subsequently reported. The natural consequence is a distortion of the public's understanding.
The magnitude of a deficiency such as this may be better understood, possibly, with an unrelated yet simple analogy. If a radio news report indicated all the plants in the forest were lost to fire, one might deduce that the trees may have been spared, somehow. Why? Because most folks are not necessarily familiar with the concept of sets and subsets.
For example, "every tree is a plant, but not every plant happens to be a tree." Is this concept universally understood? Perhaps not. Or, let's look at the word 'house." That "house" may or may not be your "home," even though you probably live in a "house" and not a "hut" (which might be someone else's "home"). We see how house and home may or may not mean the same thing in all circumstances.
Consequently, when we read or hear that "filmed reports of celebrations on the West Bank" later was said to have been << produced >>, while it is technically correct, the language used does not permit the public to fully comprehend the act committed by the news media and the possible ethical questions which should be raised as a result. Finally, every newscast is almost always "produced" by someone or some corporate entity. This word is often used, in a positive sense, in the television and radio news industry. Therefore, to employ the use of the word "produce," in this framework, is to run the risk of creating at the very least, a meaningless image.
When specificity is lacking, competent communication suffers, resulting in misunderstanding (the single, most important, cause of the world's problems). I am hopeful I have competently communicated my concern for the need to modify the usage of a single word. Best regards!
- What about "staged"? basicly they handed out sweets (or rather a type of cookies called "kanafe") and filmed a coupe of persons who had no idea what was going on. It's not that thard to get kids to jump up and down in front of a camera. A reporter from Die Stern managed to track down the woman in the film and interviewed her. She claimed she had no idea what the "celebration" was about. At http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm a version of this is mentioned, but the footage was actually done by palestinian cameramens. // Liftarn 15:14 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
I don't seem to remember the Taliban claiming responsibility for the attacks. When-all did this happen, exactly? Is there some documentation for this claim? Graft
Removed this bit:
- However, facts don't back the ¨poverty spurs terrorism¨ thesis and, like hate crime perpetrators, terrorists do not necessarily have a personal background of poverty. Bin Laden is known to be a wealthy Saudi businessman, and his hijackers have come from the ruling elite rather than from the slums. As the terrorists never have raised agendas for enhanced business ethics in international policy nor done anything that could achieve them, perception has grown that the imperialism thesis belongs to the fog of war, and the hatred that embeds terrorism is more than a consequence of United States foreign policy.
(a) it is unattributed POV analysis
(b) it mischaracterizes the "poverty spurs terrorism" thesis anyway, which does not say "poor people are terrorists".
(c) Also, in fact, many of the hijackers came from middle class backgrounds, definitely not from ruling class backgrounds. No Saudi princes on the planes.
(d) It conflates the "imperialism" thesis with "poverty spurs terrorism" which are two different things. The latter was advanced by the likes of Colin Powell, who, rather than critiquing U.S. imperialism, conducts it. The former was advanced by leftist/anti-war types, and states that physical U.S. interventions and aid to repressive governments - e.g., support for Mubarak, the Saudi Royal Family, King Abdullah of Jordan, Israel, etc. - are what cause the anger that results in terrorism.
So, I've removed this passage until someone wants to do something better with it. Graft 15:11 27 May 2003 (UTC)
This link does not work:
Millions of shares sold before disaster, The Times, 9/18/2001 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skeptical
July 8, 2003 3:10 PM Chicago time
| Contents |
al Qaeda responsibility
I'm baffled by the claim that Al-Qaeda is not explicitly linked to the attacks. Did no one watch the videos in which Osama bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith claimed responsibility and explicitly promised that more such attacks were in the works? --Delirium 03:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
ahem, how good is you arabic ? it has been widely reported, that multiple interviews with UBL were mistranslated, or misinterpreted, as these people generally tend to speak in a very different way, we do. I am sorry, but i have to point out, that these statements ("we did 9-11") are not widely accepted. it is sure that he praised the attacks, but to my knowledge he never clearly claimed to be responsible.--217.224.142.247 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First, OBL explicitly acknowledged responsibility for the attacks in his "election speech" at the end of October 2004. Second, there was never any uncertainty as to who was behind the attacks among terrorism experts and scholars at the time, nor among anyone who was really paying attention to international terrorism at the time. Confusion and uncertainty about the specific plot, for sure, but al Qaeda linked terrorists had tried in 1993 to bring down the WTC, it was well known that OBL had declared war on America, and al Qaeda's MO was well known by this point as well. And as early as 12/2001 (http://www.qern.org/node/view/80) OBL praised the attacks in terms that made it clear that he considered himself an inspiration to the hijackers. --csloat 03:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"OBL praised the attacks in terms that made it clear that he considered himself an inspiration to the hijackers." - this is still no proof that OBL was behind this attack, nor that Al Quaeda was behind it. It's not even proof that OBL was 'an inspiration to the hijackers'! (It's just an assumption of a guy) --24 Apr 2005
- You've got to be joking. Do you really think someone else was behind the attacks? Has somebody else taken credit for them in stronger terms than OBL? --csloat 19:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
the seventh paragraph
beginning "Worldwide, a significant minority see the attack as an outcome of past United States involvement in the Middle East and surrounding area..."
I hold this viewpoint. Otherwise, you'd be saying the attacks were made at random, that there was no cause. This is not saying "you got what you deserved" or anything of the sort. It's a logical analysis of history. Many on the American left have made these conclusions, but no one says that the attacks were justified or that they were not evil. I don't want to delete the paragraph but I think it should be revised for NPOV. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Great "Terrorism" Debate
There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 11:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
U.S. culpability
link added to the book Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert). I mean no disrespect for any of the victims. I feel wiki should mention a book exploring such possibility, as it is being considered by a non-negligible amount of citizens. It's not like saying 911 never happened: it's saying the conspirators for the killing may be in unexpected places. /Mick2 23:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)