Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

Honorable sons or animals?

Reports that an "Australian accent" can be heard in a "militant broadcast" (whose authenticity is not confirmed) make for attention-grabbing headlines. But the convenience of the release's timing, and variations in the reported language indicates that all is not as it may first seem.

The ABC has quoted part of the speech as:

"The Honourable Sons of Islam will not just let you kill our families in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir and the Balkans, Indonesia, the Caucuses and elsewhere"

They describe what "seems to be an Australian accent".

NineMSN and the SMH offer:

"The animals under Islam will not just let you kill our families in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir and the Balkans, Indonesia, the Caucuses and elsewhere".

CNN(via Netscape's portal) however renders more dramatically "a diatribe by a British- or Australian-accented man" who "yells":

"The Muslim world is not your backyard [...] The honorable sons of Islam will not let you kill our sons. It is time for us to be equals. As you kill, you will be killed. As you bomb, you will be bombed."

The disparity in transcripts between "Honourable Sons of Islam" and "the animals under Islam" is very striking. Most outlets have not stated whether the speech is Arabic or English - a key point. However, considering the reports of an "Aussie accent", the language of that segment is probably English, and the disparity of descriptions becomes even more engaging. CNN at least describes the content:

"The film is subtitled in Arabic, but carries interviews in English, French, Pashto and Urdu, as well as Arabic spoken with Yemeni, Saudi and Iraqi accents"

That's a fairly comprehensive analyis. It is hard to believe that "Honourable Sons" and "animals" sound alike, raising the question of deliberate mistranslation. Note also that the reportage from the US is circumspect in describing the speaker as "British- or Australian-accented", while the Australian stories have no qualification. Indeed, while there is a reasonable possibility the accent is not Australian at all, conjuring notions of an "Aussie terrorist" is far more attention-getting. And convenient.

Reportage for British consumption describes a "Midlands terrorist", quoting different sections of the film apparently without reference to Australia.

Another interesting statement, in a story playing up vulnerabilities, is that "those behind the July bombings were not linked to al Qaeda" according to a senior UK police officer. The SMH reports him as saying "the bombers were a third-tier grouping with intellectual sympathies to al Qaeda propaganda". Does "a third-tier grouping with intellectual sympathies" a terror cell make?

There are many distinct news "facts" related to "terror" emerging almost daily, which tend to quickly disappear. To aggregate these stories raises a challenge to mainstream "official" lines. The effort to analyse and accumulate however is probably beyond the average reader over a sustained period - a fact the news makers rely on. For instance, the revelation that US military intelligence knew of, and tracked, the 9-11 cell up to a year before the event has major implications - but is unlikely to raise the level of interest as highly as it might have closer to those terrible attacks.

Note 1: the SMH, creditably, has in the afternoon re-published the story, minus that phrase. It is now "The [inaudible] under Islam". The Foreign Minister, however, has stated the video "appears to be authentic" and that the "yelling" man in question "seems to be a native English speaker". He uses qualifications ("appears" and "seems") that hide the fact it is very difficult to assert authenticity of message or accent without serious and specific training - though that would never prevent a politician seeking to gain publicity from assuming the unproven is "true" where it might fit with existing or desired perceptions.

Note 2: The tape was broadcast on the media widely last night. The copies shown on the ABC and SBS were clearly audible as "The honourable sons and daughters of Islam". The accent is plausibly, not definitively, Australian. The Daily Telegraph writes that the speaker was "deliberately switching between a London cockney and Australian accent" - though the "deliberation" is assumed (there are other linguistic reasons for such shifts). The segment shown was subtitled in Arabic.

Note 3: The SMH today makes two important observations. One, the video is very professionally produced (which is unusual for "Al Qaeda" tapes from the field - compare with previous releases.) Two, that "the man's handling of the firearm indicated he might have had Western weapons training."

Note 4: 48 hours later, the Australian quotes a 'spokeswoman for Attorney-General' saying "there is no proof he is an Australian citizen or that he has ever been to Australia". News.com's feed also quotes Man of Steel as revealling AQ "isn't a worldwide movement and support for al-Qaeda in this country and Britain is absolutely minuscule" - in stark contrast to the efforts to persuade the public to believe otherwise. The devolution from politicians holding AQ responsible for most "terrorism" in the west, to portraying an ideological "war" fought by disparate, even amateur, groups is extremely important to note. This is arguably a strategy to reinforce or implant the notion that anyone, anywhere could be a "terrorist", raising public alarm levels to the extent where civil liberties are willingly surrendered in the rush to demand "protection".

Item posted by AutoEditor at 1:09 pm ::