Understanding terrorism

[Trilby]

tw--and before I say anything, let me tell you how pretty I think you are--are you suggesting that your "Muslim Brotherhood" is an INVENTED enemy? How many Muslims do you know on a personal level? None? One? Two? You know, I hate Bush as much as the next guy, really, but trying to understand a person who would happily, joyfully blow himself up just to off some innocent civilians? That's a hatred I can't begin to know.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

How many Muslims do you know on a personal level? None? One? Two?

Remember the crash of the Egypt Airliner? The co-pilot transcript as he was crashing the plane into the sea? My Arab friends kept saying the translation was completely inaccurate. That those exact same words would be said for a completely different meaning. You do remember that the US government finally admitted to some translation error - how long ago?

They also tell me the Koran is not properly represented in English. Another from Tunisia was just recently complained how an English translation had completely distorted the Arab intent. She said she did not even recognize the English version.

Now I don't understand this distortion in translation. I take their word for what they tell me because so many Arab friends (who don't even know one another) have told me the same thing. The actual meaning of the Koran is often distorted when not in Arabic. This from someone whose Arab is limited to words such as Shocrum. This is from someone who has no Arab friends?

BTW, I sometimes read some advanced math books. Who most often asks questions about all that messy math? Rarely the traditional Americans. Often those Arab friends get curious because they also took that math in Egypt or Morroco. Makes we wonder who in America really has enough technical knowledge to innovate.

But then I don't have Arab friends?

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood was not described as an invented enemy. Curiously, the Muslim Brotherhood is also a topic that my Arab friends seem to avoid discussing. Found it curious why they tend to avoid the topic.

[lookout123]

it looks like you are slipping - you forgot to insert my name into that post.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Remember the crash of the Egypt Airliner? The co-pilot transcript as he was crashing the plane into the sea? My Arab friends kept saying the translation was completely inaccurate.

So, what was the reported version vs. your friends' version?

They also tell me the Koran is not properly represented in English.

Having read the Koran in it's entirety, I'm interested in this statement ... in what way is The Koran misrepresented? What is the flavor that it's supposed to have?

Arab/Islamic terrorism for political gain seems to have gotten started in the late 1960s, which is the time at which hijackers stopped demanding to go to Cuba (never quite understood that one, must have been the nice beaches) and started going to Syria

US planes have been hijacked by terrorists on multiple occasions through the 1970s. Iranian "students" took The US Embassy workers hostage in 1979, and things have escalated ever since.

Where'd you get the 1990 date?

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Having read the Koran in it's entirety, I'm interested in this statement ... in what way is The Koran misrepresented? What is the flavor that it's supposed to have?

I keep asking for specific examples of how the English version did not agree with the Arabic version. Instead I always get answers that are general; a specific example not cited. The Koran is on my reading list. And until I read it, I was not going to press them on specifics. Meanwhile, which English version of the Koran did you read?

Where'd you get the 1990 date?

1 Aug 1990 : the day that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Previously, many right wing Americans such as Kilpatrick, Buchanan, Wolfovich, Quayle, etc were still insisting that the Cold War had not ended. A resulting new world order meant the US paid practically nothing to liberate Kuwait; Japan being the country that paid most for that war. Most every nation paid something to liberate Kuwait. How's that for just another example of how the world changed. A war authorized and legal without a national declaration of war. Even the American extreme right wing conceded that the Cold War was over due to what happened on 1 Aug 1990. It is one of the rare times in history where virtually the entire world came to the same conclusion. 1 Aug 1990 was a rare example of when the entire world was working for the benefit of the world's people. 1 Aug 1990 was a day the world changed.

Another noteworthy day (and I don't have the date) was when Hitler was elected by the German people.

[russotto]

And so, with the multi-national ejection of a secular dictator from a country ruled by an (Islamic) monarchy, all the Islamic fundamentalists who were formerly best buddies with the United States and the West in general were suddenly our sworn enemies. (and of course it's all George Bush's fault)

Damn, tw-world is sure a strange place. If the sky is blue there, it's a blue which has no relation to what the rest of us would call "blue".

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Another noteworthy day (and I don't have the date) was when Hitler was elected by the German people.

There was no such date. Hitler was never elected by the German People, per se. Hindenberg appointed Hitler to the post of Chancellor on January 30, 1933. A general election would have taken place in March 1933, if the Reichstag hadn't conveniently burned down, and the Law for the Protection of the People and State was put into place.

On March 23, 1933 a meeting of the Reichstag was held in a temporary location (an opera house) and attendance was controlled by two factors ... communist and socialist factions had already been outlawed, and the SA made sure that members of parties likely to dissent wouldn't get it. That's where Hitler got handed dictatorial power through the Enabling Bill.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

I keep asking for specific examples of how the English version did not agree with the Arabic version. Instead I always get answers that are general; a specific example not cited. The Koran is on my reading list. And until I read it, I was not going to press them on specifics. Meanwhile, which English version of the Koran did you read?

The N.J. Dawood translation, published by Penguin.

Every time I try to have a conversation on this topic with the Pakistani doctor at work, there are too darn many patients to be seen and he doesn't have time to talk when I do. If I ever do get to talk to him, I'll let you know what his impressions are.

[Undertoad]

Not al-Qaeda?

Al-Qaeda bomb link is confirmed

THE British-born mastermind of the London attacks had direct links with al-Qaeda, police sources confirmed yesterday.

He is believed to be connected to a senior figure who took part in an al-Qaeda terror summit in Pakistan 16 months ago where a list of future targets was reportedly finalised.

Forensic scientists said last night that the explosives used by the London bombers was the same type used by the convicted British shoe-bombers Richard Reid and Saajid Badat. Scientists hope to establish today whether it originated from the same batch.

It was made from ingredients known to be taught to al-Qaeda recruits in Afghanistan training camps and elsewhere, confirming suspicions that the London bombings were the work of al-Qaeda.

[Griff]

I thought I'd google the bro'hood to see what the skinny was on the outfit. It appears they had the goal of cranking up the wahabbi on all the Arab governments and own Saudi Arabia. According to this article they got a hold of bin Laden when it hurt to pee so he decided everyone else should be protected from such a life-style. Anybody else see a pattern among religous nuts who can't do personal responsibility? It seems the bro'hood spawns these outfits (al queda etc...) but are trying to be legit governmentals (oxymoronic eh?). Anyway, I'm on the outside of three fingers of the cheapest scotch known to man so I'll let others contribute.

[Undertoad]

I'm sure that the key people who matter know that the "war" is really on radical Islamism, not al Qaeda. I'm sure that many people who currently undertake various operations consider themselves to be al Qaeda "sympathizers" and take the name in order to feel more badass. Nevertheless,

Al Qaeda bomb link is confirmed

[xoxoxoBruce]

You may be right but it doesn't help their credibility by bullshitting us.
Maybe they are giving the press the brush off by throwing out buzz words that are easy to report, but it's still bullshitting the public.

[mrnoodle]

Since the BBC saw fit to print this, it stands to reason that the problem is actually much worse. Bright note: the majority of folks actually think suicide bombing is a bad thing.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You may be right but it doesn't help their credibility by bullshitting us.
Maybe they are giving the press the brush off by throwing out buzz words that are easy to report, but it's still bullshitting the public.

30 some years previous, people would say that surely a man as smart as Gen William Westmoreland really knew more about Vietnam than he was saying. Guess what. His simplistic lies about Vietnam WERE what he knew. Westmoreland just died last week still insisting the war could have been won if he was just given enough support.

Don't believe for a minute that leaders know more than they are saying. This administration would blame everything on Al Qaeda because that is their knowledge. Complexities such as Muslim Brotherhood don't play well in the minds of those who also assume the region can be fixed. For if the region was as complex as it really is, then the region cannot be fixed by simply forcing democracy down their throat. Since we are going to fix the region, then those complexities cannot exist. A self fulfilling prophesy?

Frontline recently laid out the politics of Lebanon. Literally most of the country, at one point, had rallied in Beirut’s Martyr Square. So would the party of Hararri become the new leading party? Of course not. If you did not see that Frontline piece; if your knowledge of Lebanon politics is simply Lebanon’s nationalism verses Syrian dominance, then you have no idea what those demonstrations were really about. If your definition of Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then you are listening to too many Rush Limbaugh types.

Iraq is no different. The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion. Another organization with a common enemy - Americans. These insurgents are also described by some as Al Qaeda simply because they too are attacking Americans. Examples of simplistic Washington logic - when do we learn the lessons of Vietnam?

Another organization is Armed Vanguards of Muhammad's Second Army. What is this? Another nationwide organization or just some cousins with a video camera. These are questions The Economist is asking because there are no simple answers - as being promoted in Washington where fixing the region is their objective.

There is no monolithic Al Qaeda; no monolithic enemy. Iraq has become the perfect training ground for numerous insurgents, terrorists, and religious extremist recruitment. Why? Our own leaders never bothered to first learn how complex the region really is. Some foolishly believed Saddam and bin Laden were allies when in reality they were the worst of enemies. These Washington leaders had the Gen Westmoreland attitude. Wolfovich was as decieved as McNamara. They just assumed this was a region where people were trained to hate Americans. That the little people would welcome American liberators and everyone would then live happy lives. Preconceived notions have now become bad reality. Our current leaders only got what they wished for because they had no idea what they really wanted. And still some insist all these attacks are somehow bin Laden's plans. Still so many in Washington have no clue, in part, because reality is political suicide in this administration.

Ironic. If they considered bin Laden as so evil, then why do we still not send a single division to get him? Because these same leaders had no plans for the peace (no concept even of lessons from 500 BC), even Afghanistan is slowly returning to the Taliban. Exactly what happens when there is no comprehension of who is the enemy, why he is an enemy, and no strategic objective (and therefore no exit strategy).

The road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:

The 19th century British fort that dominates the skyline above Qalat offers an easy reference point for low flying Apache helicopters heading for the America base near the town, the capital of Afghanistan's southern province of Zabul. Yet despite being backed by impressive foreign muscle, the government's control of Qalat barely reaches the city limits. ... Zabal remains Taliban country.

One year after America 'liberated' Afghanistan, still the promised water system was not even restored. IOW just like in Iraq, America had no plans for the peace. As a result, even the Arab Crescent (an Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) will not go in one half of Afghanistan's proviences. That much of the country has now been taken back by the Taliban since America had no plans (just a lot of talk) for the peace.

BTW, since our leaders had no idea of how Afghanistan works, well, where is the strategic objective and exit strategy for Afghanistan? Sounds just like the same mistake made by the British in Afghanistan. Sounds just like the exact same mistake made by these same leaders in Iraq. Ask yourself what will be the strategic objective when America attacks Iran and N Korea? Or will we the people have finally learned the lessons from Vietnam? We still don't even understand who the enemy is in Iraq. And our leaders apparently don't know it either. For if our leaders had any knowledge, then they would be admitting that Iraq is only becoming worse. (UT should be asking for numbers for that statement).

I'll tell you what. The current administration is indifferent to the niceties of religous and political innuendos in the Middle East. They don't know because they don't care. If ever there was a case of an administration wagging the dog, it would be a photo finish of that flap of the tail between the Nixon and George Jr. administrations. And I don't mean any Monica Lewinski's either.

Iraq is about oil. Forget religion, forget democracy, forget crimes against humanity (Jr. commits them all the time with little, if any public comment), forget the "war on terror."

Junior went into Iraq after 9/11 in order to make it appear to the public that he was making a response to terrorism. It didn't hurt things any that a strong American force in that region will be essential to securing US strategic oil reserves. It also didn't hurt that Jr.'s sidekick, Dick Chaney, has strong ties with Halliburten, Root and CO., and their ilk. Can anyone say "war profiteering"? Hitler had the Swiss banking system. The current administration has the Cayman Islands.

What nationality is Bin Ladin?

Class? Yes, you in the back, CORRECT!

WE DON'T CARE!

Iraq is about siezing strategic control of the most precious substance on the face (actually interior) of the earth - petroleum. Our military might would grind to a halt without it. He who controls the oil, controls the world's power and wealth. It is very, very simple. And it is a game played for high stakes without remorse or compassion on either side.

The Muslim members of the educated middle and upper class understand what is going on. That's why they are willing to become terrorists. The poverty stricken masses follow because they are poor and ignorant and Allah or Jesus via their local religous leader told them to do it.

More fools are we all.