Wasn't us, we swear!

October 10, 2001 10:18 AM

Wasn't us, we swear! All Americans can breathe easy and trust the good ole CIA again. They didn't create this Frankenstein at all! Really!
posted by badstone (32 comments total)

Sorry if this is a repost, seems like it might be since it was released on the 5th. Couldn't find it in a search, though.
posted by badstone at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2001

"I did not have relations with that woman."
posted by amanda at 10:39 AM on October 10, 2001

They say they never employed, paid, or maintained a relationship with Usama bin Ladin. Hmm. How about with Osama bin Laden?
posted by misterioso at 10:41 AM on October 10, 2001

I am perfectly willing to believe the CIA and, by extension, the United States government had a hand in training bin Laden, but this denial raises an important, obvious question: how do we know the CIA created the Usama (or Osama) bin Laden that we see today? Do we verifiable facts? I'm not defending our foreign policy or apologizing for the CIA; I'm asking for information.
posted by UnReality at 10:47 AM on October 10, 2001

If you believe that, I got this bridge to sell you...
posted by bob bisquick at 10:48 AM on October 10, 2001

[Misterioso, the proper spelling of his name is in Arabic. All translations into Roman letters are phonetic representations and tentative. There is no official proper spelling of his name in Roman letters.]
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:49 AM on October 10, 2001

"Would I lie to you---twice?" LOL!
posted by realjanetkagan at 10:51 AM on October 10, 2001

steven: Maybe misterioso is suggesting the spelling is an artful dodge.
posted by nikzhowz at 10:52 AM on October 10, 2001

Well, you can start sifting for facts...
posted by badstone at 10:53 AM on October 10, 2001

sift... sift...
posted by badstone at 10:55 AM on October 10, 2001

nikzhowz: You've got it, and I completely understand Steven's response as well. I was just playing devil's advocate.
posted by misterioso at 11:02 AM on October 10, 2001

CIA meaning something other than the Central Intelligence Agency, right?
posted by Trampas at 11:08 AM on October 10, 2001

Ohhh, I must be confused with the OTHER CIA...I'll just check with them...
posted by schmedeman at 11:12 AM on October 10, 2001

boy we sure spent money on something there. (Scroll down to the second "COVERT ACTION SPENDING," for a handy little table, then past the next HR to the Afghanistan heading.)
posted by badstone at 11:15 AM on October 10, 2001

All translations into Roman letters are phonetic representations and tentative.
Isn't there (I don't know, I'm asking) for converting Arabic script into roman characters? The Chinese have one if I'm not mistaken. Not having one must cause havoc - maps, visiting cards, foreign language publications...
posted by Zootoon at 11:23 AM on October 10, 2001

Not having one must cause havoc...

Yep.
posted by nikzhowz at 11:27 AM on October 10, 2001

e.g., Zooton: is it Beijing or Peking? (look at the title bar)
Even the capital city of the biggest nation on earth has an uncertain spelling.
Jorn (of RobotWisdom fame/infamy) often does cultural spellchecks, by hitting Google with a few different spellings of a name to see which is most popular lately.
posted by badstone at 11:30 AM on October 10, 2001

I believe the CIA.

It's possible for the statement to be strictly true, and for the CIA to be partly, significantly responsible for bin Laden's ascent to the Top Ten Most Wanted List.

Say the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained a relationship with bin Laden. So, what if the CIA instead underwrote and trained the Pakistani ISI intelligence service and encouraged it to train bin Laden as one of its (numerous) proxies in Afghanistan during the jihad against the Soviets?
posted by sacre_bleu at 11:37 AM on October 10, 2001

All translations into Roman letters are phonetic representations and tentative.

To be hypercorrect, Osama/Usama is a transliteration.

The translation is "big cat" or , perhaps, "big pussy"
posted by quercus at 11:46 AM on October 10, 2001

But, by that logic (sacre_bleu), the only people responsible for 9_11 are the people that actually went down in the planes. bin Laden (or whoever is ultimately behind the attack) probably did not pay them directly at all, but rather "encouraged" their organizations. In a world where geopolitical action takes place namelessly and "flaglessly," the next best means of determining responsibility is to follow the money.
posted by badstone at 11:48 AM on October 10, 2001

Nonetheless, I actually couldn't condemn what they seem to have done in Afghanistan - I don't know enough history to know what would've happened if they hadn't taken the action they did. (Though, I might venture to guess that actually "capturing" Afghanistan might've given the USSR a bigger headache than losing the war did.) Even still, I think it's just silly for the CIA to make this denial - it just reinforces people's stereotype of them as greasy, double talking liars, a stereotype they'll need to blow away if they're supposed to be entering a golden age of intelligence.
posted by badstone at 11:56 AM on October 10, 2001

Is there a requirement in U.S. law for a defendant in a legal action, whether brought by a citizen or by the government, to be properly identified by name in all documents? (I recall reading that regarding a completely unrelated subject - some guy saying that his name in ALL CAPS is not his name, since his name is Not All in Caps).

That would present a problem here. The difference between "Usama" and "Osama" might be a loophole for defense. How about printing his name in the language and character-set of its origin?

Screwy.
posted by yesster at 12:01 PM on October 10, 2001

That would present a problem here.

If bin Laden were being to a US Court of Law it could be a bit of a snag, but war isn't legal action. It's an entirely different type of justice going on.
posted by cCranium at 12:05 PM on October 10, 2001

OK, OK, so bin Laden was never trained at the Culinary Institute of America.
posted by Fley Mingmasc at 12:14 PM on October 10, 2001

Yeah Right.
posted by entropy at 12:21 PM on October 10, 2001

damn cia should leave the press releases to the professionals and stick to stealth photoshopping.
posted by quonsar at 12:35 PM on October 10, 2001

Isn't there (I don't know, I'm asking) for converting Arabic script into roman characters? The Chinese have one if I'm not mistaken.

is it Beijing or Peking? (look at the title bar) Even the capital city of the biggest nation on earth has an uncertain spelling.

It is Peking if you are using the 18th century Wade-Giles romanization, and Beijing if you are using Pinyin. Pinyin became the official romanization scheme under Mao Zedong (or Mao Tse-tung), and is more common.

More information here.

I am not aware of any Arabic equivalent.
posted by gazingus at 12:49 PM on October 10, 2001

sigh...
posted by adnanbwp at 12:58 PM on October 10, 2001

Actually, there is an ANSI standard for the romanization of Arabic, created in 1971. It's not available on the web, only in hardcopy. The ANSI standard number is Z39.12.

Of course, there are probably other standards besides the ANSI one. That's the great thing about standards -- there are so many to choose from!
posted by Potsy at 1:49 PM on October 10, 2001

Great post, badstone!
posted by snowgum at 2:43 PM on October 10, 2001

(Score: 5 Informative)
Thanks gazingus!
posted by badstone at 2:58 PM on October 10, 2001

Trampas:
CIA meaning something other than the Central Intelligence Agency, right?

Precisely. We at the CIA had nothing to do with Mr. bin Laden.

*grin*
posted by calyirose at 10:29 AM on October 11, 2001