For example: -
“We also warn, as we said, against the confusion created by the United States. It wants to strike at the state of Islam in Afghanistan by raising the flag of striking at Usama Bin Ladin. But, this will not do.”
~bin Laden, 1998
Then also worth repeating, I don’t ever recall a record of bin Laden sitting having a chit-chat not intended for public consumption - it has always been one of his scripted speeches or occasionally an interview for the purpose of sending a political message. The 2001 videotape is very unusual; a unique circumstance.
- He isn't having a conversation in this example. As you've stated, this was from a statement intended for public consumption.
- He makes reference to his full name here, not the ambiguous pronoun "he."
I agree that the 2001 video is a unique circumstance.
You don't see a problem with this?
Beyond the obvious use of conversational language and visual cues that I've pointed out previously, which more than suggests that bin Laden is referring to "He (Abu Guaith)", you don't see this direct contradiction in your interpretation? Either he had foreknowledge or he didn't.
I have to wonder if you are ignoring the logical conclusion here just because it doesn't support your apparent beliefs. You are clearly a very intelligent person, but I think most unbiased observers would agree with the interpretation I've offered; that bin Laden is referring to "He (Abu Guaith)."