There is this guy whose blog I found about a week ago. He does some really nice and funny sketches mostly with issues regarding Bucharest and things he finds out/encounters.
The fact that he is smart to see some of the rudeness happening in Bucharest doesn't help him notice he is manipulated by the press (and himself) and writes:
"La 6 ani de la 11 septembrie 2001, Osama bin Laden a scos capu' din vagauna cu o noua inregistrare video in care da lumii intregi 2 alternative: convertirea la Islam sau moartea!"Which translates approximately to:
"Six years after September 11, 2001,
Osama bin Laden shows his face out from his hiding place and makes a new video in which gives the whole
wolrd 2 alternatives: converting to Islam or death!"
(I won't take into discussion the correct translation of the message from
Osama, if the message is authentic, if
Osama is payed by somebody
interested in keeping the conflict open, if
Osama's forces are actually active in Iraq, if Bush is
Osama himself, if we're actually living in 1984 and
Osama is already dead but the American manipulative government is using all sorts of recordings from him to keep people inside a cage and fed them propaganda, &
lt; insert your theory/idea here >....)
He links to
this article, whose title might make one to think what the guy said is true (according to the article)...
But, if read carefully is clear that there are a few twists (in order of apparition):
- the alternatives were given to the American people ("urged the American people")
- the alternatives were for the ending of the war in Iraq ("there are two ways to end the war in Iraq")
- the first alternative is escalation of the conflict, not death; that would translate, IMHO, into "we will be fighting in Iraq and you can give up, but we will not", so I'd say surrender/retreat/keep fighting and probably die are all viable alternatives for the first one
- apparently he says converting to Islam is an alternative ("The second way, he continues, is to reject America's democratic system and convert to Islam.")
- but, if we read on we see that he actually says just to acknowledge that democracy is not at all a successful model, unless by success one thinks in terms of a system that achieves the interests of the corporations ("It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interest of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations")
- and more importantly, converting to Islam is not actually a condition, but there is an invitation to do that ("I invite you to embrace Islam,")
So, the conclusion is that it's really easy to fall into the trap of believing what the titles and headlines suggest, rather than what the articles actually say, especially if you keep your head open only to single stream of ideas (I guess you, my dear reader, are smart enough to see what I mean here).
Disclaimer, my analysis might be off, my English sucks, I might be
Osama, I might be Bush, I didn't saw the recording, there's a cat on a freezer...
