Playboy Japan Interview -- Translated (Part 2)

[Paul Mackin]

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 00:36, Tim Strzechowski wrote:
> [ ... ]
>  
> Bin Laden should be looked upon as a symbol
>  
> The United States has always had a tendancy to look for an enemy.  It
> is a country that cannot stand not having one.  Even for this
> terrorist incident, it is already determined that the villain behind
> all of this is bin Laden, but in reality they are saying that because
> they cannot stand not doing so.  I believe that bin Laden is someone's
> clown for a rodeo.
>  
> Although my thoughts are always paranoid, I believe that I'm the only
> one who feels this way.  It is said that NSA is on a lookout for him
> but I think that like an onion, new layers will be discovered.  No
> matter how I look at the situation, it doesn't seem like bin Laden is
> doing this independently.  The only impression that I get is that he
> is some kind of star actor.
>  
> Honestly speaking, we cannot even tell if the face that comes out on
> television and on the newspapers is his real face.  I remember someone
> saying right after the terrorist incident, "Come on, you want bin
> Laden?  We'll give you 20 of him."  Even if the United States succeeds
> in killing him that would mean that there are still 19 bin Ladens
> left.  Even if there is only one, there are probably many people who
> would take his place once they kill bin Laden.
>  
> If we look at this from a different point-of-view, we should look at
> bin Laden as a symbol rather than a man.  Bin Laden may not even
> exist.
>  
> The other day when I was surfing the net, it said that the punishment
> that suits bin Laden the best is to catch him alive, bring him to a
> hospital, give him a transexual operation, and send him back to
> Afghanistan.  He would then understand the disservice done to the
> women in Afghanistan.
>  
> We cannot forget that many of bin Laden's brothers were partners with
> George Bush Jr. for the purpose of oil ventures in the past.  The
> doctor who is known to be at bin Laden's side at all times was a
> member of the group who killed Sadat.  When that assassination
> happened, Egypt became involved and there must have been people who
> fled to Afghanistan.
>  
> What is often said is that it is the United State's wealth that is the
> cause of the terrorists' hatred.  I can understand their feelings
> well.  When I see a wealthy person, I instinctively feel anger deep in
> my stomach.  If you think about how Afghanistan is one of the poorest
> countries in the world, it is only natural for them to feel hatred
> toward the wealthy United States.  They have no other choice but to
> detest them.
>  
> Even if the United States stops their support for Isreal, I don't
> think that everything will become peaceful.  However, from their
> point-of-view this is the origin of all Isreal's mistakes.
>  
> On a final note, if I were to vigorously invest in something right
> now, I would invest in the tobacco industry.  After that incident,
> people who had stopped smoking before have started it again.
>  


Is this ALL there was to to the article?

Doesn't the piece have title?

Isn't the location (where the interview took place) given?

Isn't the name and title of the interviewer indicated?

If this was an interview, these must be answers to questions asked by
the interviewer. Didn't he article indicate what questions were asked to
elicit these responses?

Is the p-list as stupid as it sounds?

P.