Al Qaeda's desperate plea

Posted Thursday on a popular Islamic website, the latest Al Qaeda propaganda tape, featuring the terror group’s newly commissioned commander, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, urges scientists and explosives experts to join Al Qaeda, because apparently it takes more than an ideology to produce deadly weapons.

Evidently, al-Masri and his conniving faction of evil are wholly unequipped to formulate and implement their insidious treachery, so they have to market their ideology to suits with PhD’s, hoping the appeal of being labeled a war criminal will persuade some of the white collar class to drop their pocket protectors and hone their AK skills.

“The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty,” said al-Masri, according to Fox News.

Al Qaeda, the most daunting terror organization in the world—the group that permeated the United States’ seemingly impenetrable hide, killing scores of Americans on their own soil—is parched for patrons and ill-equipped to proliferate its death weapons, so they have to concoct a convoluted recruitment ploy to garner loyalists.

That begs the question: why is the world’s most prolific terror group resorting to internet advertising to conjure up support for their cause? Or, more fittingly, is it time for the world to reconsider Al Qaeda’s status as the world’s most distinguished terrorist organization?

Perhaps the most compelling evidence characterizing Al Qaeda’s diminished capacity, other than the desperate appeal for help by the group’s new leader, is the recently de-classified NIE report, which asserts that U.S. counterterrorism measures have “seriously damaged” Al Qaeda’s internal framework and leadership, according to CNN. Granted, the report did state that an innate resentment of the United States, supposedly fostered by U.S. military intervention in Iraq, is cultivating jihadist fervor and could result in the manifestation of terror cells, although given Al Qaeda’s evident state of paucity, it appears that the sweeping fundamentalist fervor enunciated in the NIE report hasn’t exactly caught fire.

In fact, Al Qaeda is so strapped for support that it is willing to grant amnesty to Iraqi’s who aided and abetted the United States during the occupation efforts, ensuring the disillusioned citizens that they “will not attack you as long as you declare your true repentance,” according to Fox News. Evidently the “blind patriot” reserves have been exhausted, so Al Qaeda, an organization supposedly wielding an innumerable supply of resources and manpower, has to recruit the enemy.

Furthermore, the NIE report suggests that “the loss of key leaders, particularly Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups.” Interestingly enough, CNN reports the NIE transcripts were finalized several weeks before terror leader al-Zarqawi was surgically eliminated in a U.S. airstrike, so the effect of al-Zarqawi’s demise was not included in the report. Also, recent foreign intelligence reports suggest that bin Laden has been dead for over a month, although U.S. intelligence is unable to confirm the claim. If true, that would be two out of three dead tyrants, and no less than one.

Albeit, Al Qaeda is still functional—still able and willing to ravage and terrorize any and all who reject its narcissistic ideology—but it appears that U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts have finally drawn blood, finally punctured the fibrous epidermis of the resilient terror-mongers, finally pierced the taut veneer encompassing and protecting Al Qaeda. The once impenetrable brigade of gun-slingers has been stabbed, penetrated and sliced, and now, because of America’s diligence and persistence to seek due justice, the world’s most nefarious faction has been so crippled by the United States that it is incapable of producing its own treacherous weaponry of fear and control. For what is a murderer without his knife? For what is a jihadist without his bomb? For what is Al Qaeda without its fear?

Posted by Alex Fitzsimmons at September 29, 2006 3:05 PM
Comments
Comment #185133

Noooo, it’s all Iraq’s fault Masri hates us! If it wasn’t for Iraq Masri would be a broker in Manhattan and donating monthly to St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital, don’t you know that Alex?

Just ask any Dem, they’ll tell ya up and down. If it wasn’t for Iraq there’d be an Al Qaeda baseball team playing in the summer olympics. Hezbollah would sponsor a charitable golf event in Orlando, and Hamas would fund a state university in North Carolina. Not only that, October would be America’s National Jihad Month and American women of all sorts would wear berkas in support of said reverence.

Ahh, only if there was no Iraq War we could’ve had all of this! Oh wait, 9/11 happened before the Iraq War … disregard everything I just said.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 29, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #185134

Yes Ken and the plans to invade Iraq were made before 9/11. The reality is that Al-qaeda and the Taliban are in Afghanistan. We have 90% of the effort directed at 5-10% of the target. Why is that so hard to figure out??

Posted by: 037 at September 29, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #185139

037

Why did Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi say that Iraq was the central front in the war? Heck in the internet ad that Alex is speaking of “The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty,”

Why is that so hard to figure out?

Posted by: JimmyRay at September 29, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #185140

037,

Well, for all those upset OBL is being ignored by the Bush Admin, let’s be honest. If Afghanistan was the only place we had American troops all of the 60’s hippies trying to relive their youth would find some anti-terrorist war rallying cry and they’d demand we’d leave Afghanistan too. To think otherwise is completely foolhardy.

And even if you are serious about OBL’s death/capture, I’d like to get him as much as anybody, but let’s be honest here as well. The only thing the guy’s done in 5 years is make less videotapes than my 2 year old son. The other fact is the Afganistan cave system is massive and if his only plan is to hide out and keep breathing as long as possible then he can probably do that in the region he’s in. But he won’t be able to do much else. His medical care options are somewhere between nil and zero, and his communication ability is of the American Civil War era. So apparently we’re causing some decent havoc with OBL’s war making capability.

And even if 50,000 troops appeared out of thin air, I don’t think walking thru cave after cave looking for OBL is the best thing to do … there’s no better natural ambush structure than a cave.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 29, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #185142

I have the perfect solution to this whole problem: legallize heroin.

See, if we legalize heroin, then Afghanistan’s poppy fields become as valuable as Iraq’s oil fields, and big business (not sure if it would be Phillip-Morris et al, or Merck, Phizer, etc) could get behind a war there. The problem with the war in Afghanistan is it lacked sponsorship.

Posted by: David S at September 29, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #185143

Yep large american bases is the central concept. Makes me think we should stage the war someplace else. If the radicals are going to follow us why didn’t we stay in Afghanistan and fight them there?

Who said anything about OBL? and who cares what the hippies think. It is the radical Islamist I am concerned about. Read that Pushtuns on the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan and the ones in Somalia (Bashir) etc. Why do we care about a civil war between secular moderates and a few radical theocrats who will spend the next 50 years killing each other?

Posted by: 037 at September 29, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #185144

Ken-

I think you’re right about the hippies, they’ll pooh all over any war because they’re pacifists. But how much of the roughly 60% who currently oppose the Iraq war are aging hippies?

Posted by: David S at September 29, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #185145

Um, some cognitive dissonance here? You don’t think there are some smart guys who for ideological reasons might want to help Al Qaeda build a bomb? Or are you guys following a party line that somehow the Iraq war has diminished the threat of terrorism, though, of course, U.S. intelligence agencies disagree.

I for one think the real threat is a terrorist with a nuke. This is a different kind of war, as should be obvious by now.

Ken, you’re just being silly. I and none of my liberal buddies ever had a problem with the invasion of Afghanistan. And, you know, I haven’t wore paisely since … well, actually, I never did.

It’s really funny. When I started to read this article, I thought it was going to raise the alarm instead of pooh-poohing everything. I couldn’t make sense of it until I realized what misguided political purpose it was trying to serve.

Posted by: Trent at September 29, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #185150

Did the NIE report say where the terrorists we were “creating” were at?

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #185169

The most amusing thing about this political debate is what the dems are saying sounds a lot like what the terrists are saying…

read it

Posted by: Cliff at September 29, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #185171

“If Afghanistan was the only place we had American troops all of the 60’s hippies trying to relive their youth would find some anti-terrorist war rallying cry and they’d demand we’d leave Afghanistan too. To think otherwise is completely foolhardy.”

So what? Some people love peace. Give me one negative result of this scenario other than a slight annoyance that you have to look and listen to their greivences every now and then? If the other option is rushing to war with those who wouldn’t have attacked us otherwise, then I’d MUCH rather deal with the hippies. At least they can laugh at themselves.

Posted by: kevin23 at September 29, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #185173

I am one of those old 60’s anti-war, who was drafted and made the military a career. I was against Nam, but went anyway. I am against the invasion of Iraq, and against the continual lying by bush the worse and croonies.

FYI Steve Miller, Great Post

Posted by: KT at September 29, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #185174

Cliff
You are right Cliff…its even obvious to a bunch of knucklehead terrorists. Now let me see if my 6 year old can figure it out.

Posted by: 037 at September 29, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #185181

Alex:

Why do you prefer to look at what the terrorists are saying as against what the NIE said? The NIE said that the number of terrorists have increased in Iraq.

Face it. The vast majority of Iraqis want to see American troops leave. Iraq is not democratic. I just read that journalists were arrested for saying bad things about their “elected” leaders.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 29, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #185196

Apparently, arresting journalists is an American value, so maybe the Iraqis are catching on.

Posted by: David S at September 29, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #185206

yes paul they have increased in Iraq. I wonder though if you would feel better if they were flocking into say, LA? San Fran? Chicago? Miami? yeah, that would be much better for the country. to quote one of my favorite movies, “hello, mcfly”! paul, we fight and kill them in their home, not ours!

by the way, the latest islamofascist rant about taking american prisoners to hold in exchange for the release of the blind sheik and ramsi yusef, this is yet another bush mistake, and by G-d, wait, wait a minute! the clinton adminstration arrested those guys - but hey, that didn’t create any new terrorist islamofascists - they just got a letter writing campaign going to free the oppressed followers of the religion of peace, did a few larry king shows, asked the UN to intervine, right? time to wake up and smell the death incompassed in Islam, and forget blaming america or bush for their hatred of us.

Posted by: JR at September 29, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #185207

Awwk!!Islamofascists!!Awwwk!! awwk! Fight ‘em there so we don’t have to fight ‘em here!!!Awwwk!! Polly want a cracker!

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 29, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #185223

Alex
“For what is Al Queda without its fear?”

Or, what is George W. Bush without his fear?

Posted by: mark at September 29, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #185227

al-Qaeda’s not a group of amateurs. Their appeal for scientific expertise is not a cry for help. After all, look at what they pulled off in Madrid and London. Look at the Mukhtabar, the al-Qaeda device that our people found out about that could kill hundreds with Hydrogen Cyanide gas with parts from a hardware store. Look at the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, where explosives where seamlessly hidden in the hull of the boat. Look at the 9/11 attacks, where our adversaries successfully evaded our security and piloted advanced planes into buildings at hundreds of miles an hour.

Some al-Qaeda recruits are just mindless muscle, but many are not, and we must realize that to underestimate this enemy is to guarantee them another victory.

JR-
Exactly what prevents these folks from going elsewhere, pray tell? The NIE tells us that’s what precisely is happening. We’re training our future adversaries, much the way the Soviets trained our current ones.

We’re never going to kill them all staying in Iraq. We’ll just end up giving them valuable experience. The time has come to say school’s out, and to start making Iraq entirely inhospitable to terrorists. Forget killing them, let’s get control of the situation and start keeping them out so Iraq can recover from the war. That’s the big liability of the Flypaper Strategy- even if it actually worked, and wasn’t just an unconscionable spin on a security failure, the Iraqi people, who are trying to reconstruct and become independent of us are caught in the middle.

Finish the fighting, or expect Iraq to flounder.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #185230

Wow Keith, such language, and no it wasn’t because he dropped the F bomb like you. It is because he stated the bush the worse decided to invade Iraq, for no reason other then to flex his muscle, and we ended up in a middle of a civil war.
Oh do you kiss your mom with a mouth like that?

Posted by: KT at September 29, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #185251

KT,
Critique the messenger, not the messengers mother.

Alex,
Sounds like you are coming around to my way of thinking! The situation in Iraq requires one approach, because we are fighting an insurgency in a relatively urban setting. Iraq used to be a successful state, at least insofar as it functioned as a cohesive nation; it is a question of rebuilding infrastructure, and the occupation is being conducted by the US with almost no international cooperation.

The situation in Afghanistan requires another approach, because we are fighting an insurgency in an undeveloped setting. Afghanistan is a failed state, which requires building infrastructure from the ground up. In this case, international cooperation improves the chances of success, as long as sufficient resources are devoted to the effort.

The fight against Al Qaida is yet another case. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq present versions of Fourth Generation Warfare, with occupying troops attempting to integrate countries into western culture. The “War on Terror” is a completely different animal. It is borderless, and targets an organization. For all practical purposes, we have succeeded.

For purely political purposes, the Bush administration will continue prosecuting a “War on Terror.” Why not? Bush supporters will mindlessly follow the effort. The dumbing down of America will continue in full force with pejoratives like “islamofascism.” On one hand, they will advocate democracy and freedom in for Middle East. On the other hand, they will cheer the bombing of Lebanon, and condemn participants in democracy because they oppose Israel.

You are beginning to see, Alex. Too bad nothing will change the minds of the Bush administration, not even losing Congress to the Democrats in the upcoming midterm. Bush is well on the to a two-fer: losses in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I saw Bush is the worst president ever, I really mean it. Worst. President. Ever.

Give any thought to Zarqawi? Remember what I said?

Posted by: phx8 at September 29, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #185255

The fact the war on terror is being waged in Iraq is a pity but its not in the USA. Nothing else matters more than that. Finding Osama Bin Laden is essential but will not end this battle.

Posted by: bringit at September 29, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #185256

Bringit,
Excuse me, but the civil war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. “The War of the Corpses” is being fought between Shia and Sunni militias. These militias target one another, not American troops. Some Sunni insurgents target US soldiers. These are enemies, but they are not terrorists. Get it straight.

Terrorists target civilians.

Insurgents target the US military.

There are terrorists in Iraq. These are usually foreigners- the majority of them from our good ally, Saudi Arabia- and these are the ones who favor suicide bombings. They are Wahabbi fanatics, few in number, but nevertheless very, very destructive. They are NOT the same as the Baathist insurgents, they are not members of Sunni or Shia militias, nor are they associated with the Kurdish conflicts with the Turks & Iranians.

Posted by: phx8 at September 30, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #185259

They are terrorists.In whatever guise it may be and they would not think twice about taking a civilan life. Come on your a rational man.

Posted by: bringit at September 30, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #185264

Bringit,
In Iraq, the insurgents plant IEDs with the intention of killing American soldiers. Usually these bombs are placed so as to avoid killing Iraqi civilians. These insurgents are backed by the majority of their fellow Iraqis. The majority of Iraqis want US troops out of their country, and the majority of Iraqis support & approve of insurgent attacks.

Our goal is to convince the majority of Iraqis and even the insurgents themselves to work with us, rather than against us.

Terrorists in Iraq do not use IEDs; instead, they conduct suicide bombings. More often than not, these bombings are aimed at Shias, rather than Americans. These bombings are intended to kill indiscriminately, and they are intended to terrorize. These attacks are intended to polarize, and force the vast numbers of moderates to choose sides, one extreme or the other.

This sounds strange, but there is no point in fighting Iraqi insurgents. We need them on our side. However, it is important to take out the terrorists- without collateral damage. Any collateral damage is unacceptable. Killing civilians is to be avoided at all costs, because collateral damage creates a supportive attitude among the locals, and generates new terrorists faster than the current ones can be killed.

The answer, Bringit, is not more troops. That might have made a difference in 2003, but it is much, much too late now. If there is to be even a ghost of a chance of winning in Iraq, it will take a completely different attitude.

Part of that change is recognizing the difference between insurgents and terrorists, between temporary opponents and implacable foes. We can and we should negotiate with insurgents. That is not an option with true terrorists.

By the way, Bagdhad is under a total lockdown until Sunday.

Posted by: phx8 at September 30, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #185288

I think there is a deception that if/when we defeat Al-Qaeada we will defeat terrorism.

Not so, the ideas and motives that feed terrorism will still exist. The war on terrorism goes beyond Al-Qaeda. They are just one organiztion of terrorists. Hamas, Hezbollah and Whabbaism will all still exist. Radical clerics will still exist. There is some group and individual waiting to fill the void.

We must be smater and recognize that there is no military solution, only political solutions.

Posted by: Stefano at September 30, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #185302

Stefano,
great post.How do we defeat ideology with armies? I don’t know if I have THE answer. Certainly doing whatever it takes, spending whatever we must spend to break our oil habit would be a start. Unrest in the middle east has always made oil prices rise. Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t care whether or not there was unrest there?

Wouldn’t we also be way better off if we spent our resources actually hunting and killing those who would hunt and kill us? This means, unfortunately, that we have no business in Iraq. Didn’t wahabbism originate in Saudi Arabia? Aren’t most of it’s adherents there? In Saudi Arabia? Haven’t they historically fostered and financed terror? Where are they doing their training? Let’s find those camps, and blow them into the next lifetime.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #185335

Steve
What we call wahhabism was a local Saudi problem. But its philosophical roots and violent tendencies go back to the 14th centuary. It was the defeat of the islamists by mongols that began the movement. Sheikh ibn Taymiyya grew up at the time of the fall of Damascus (in 1259). He was the phiosophical under pins. He had two “students”.
In the late 1700’s Shah Waliullah was a reformer who taught Ahmad Sirhindi in Delhi’s Madrassah-i-Rahimiya, later joined by his brother Amir Khan, declaired his independence to decide matters of law - especially the right to proclaim jihad. By 1818 he was a thorn in the British side. His famous thesis wa the first published in Urdu, Sirat-ul-Mustaqim. In 1821 he issued a call to jihad against the infidel. Syed Ahmad left in the spring of 1821 for 2 years to hajj.
Al-Wahhabi studied in Medina with Shah Waliullah who married is daughter to Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud. In 1802 the “Wahhabis” conqured Karbala. In 1804 they raided and conqured Mecca. The Turkish goverment (Ottoman) failed to respond but the Egyptian segment of the empire sustained an attack and later a siege that lead to the Wahhabi defeat and the exile of the house of Saud to Islamabad (Constantanople).
Syed Ahmad was present in Arabia for this. He later returned to Pakastan to declaire himself “the hidden Imam” (Imam-Mahdi). He was mayrtered in 183, when he and 3 0f his “council was destroyed in the Punjab.
k

Posted by: Kuzriel at September 30, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #185350

Kuzriel,
Cool! Thanks for that.

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #185412

Steve and Kuzriel

In my humble view, the political solution is two sided. The US needs to recognize that it can no longer control events in the middle east. We must focus on:

1. No military bases in any Arab land
2. Get rid of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil
3. Help solve the Isreali Palestian conflict. This means being a true neutral broker, not tilted towards Isreal. There must be an end to the settlements and a solution to the Palestianin refugees.
4. Start promoting liberalization in these countries. We can no longer support Autocratic rulers.

But in the end, it is the peopl of the middle east and the Arab world that must stop their sons from joining these terrorist groups. But there must be an alternative for them.

I heard a Middle easter Expert say on PBS News Hour, “The problem is that the people are stuck between Autocratic rulers and Theocratic rulers, Both killing any form of liberalization”.

You do not see one democracy in any oil rich country. You do not see any economic development in these countries as well.

There must be some openess, economic opportunity and quality of life for these people while they are alive in the here and now, rather than seeking a better life in the hereafter as a martyer.

Posted by: Stefano at September 30, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #185434

Actually the British tried the apeassment bit in the 1830 in a place called Hindustan (Today’s Pakistan). It got progressively out of hand with the Assasination of some key authorities. The Indian population tired of British incompetence to protect them. In the 1850’s many of the leaders of “Indian Islam” or “Indian Wahhabism” were driven into Afganistan. We know the results. My family’s involvement left my great-grandfather a cripple, as he had served as a medical officer. Kybber Pass was a meatgridder.
Steano, you are right about the despots of the middle east and their policy of non-development. Even Arafat, and others of “radical Islam” only seek to replace one authoritarian rule with another, themselves. Arafat and is crew (to include the current PA leader, charge a fee to work and a tax on wages. They have always called strikes and work stoppages. If you don’t join you get burnt out or your busniss becomes someone elses. What can Ameica or that matter any of us do? Hope that the blood and influnce we leave has effect. We left Europe after WWI to clean up its act. The result was WWII and our rebuilding of Europe and Japan, in a Rosevelt style of socialism. Leaving Israel alone in the wind is not good either. The Israeli population grows more and more fed up with U.S. and European pressure to “moderate” (read: sign their death warrent, hence the final soluton is in Arab hands not Christian Europe). I expect them to do that and Islam to try again to get Austria and Hungary - even go after England and US.
I expect US to go more into an Isolationest period, but I hope it does not happen soon. Islam, today, is in a revivalist state that is quite messianic in nature. But It has not learned that external Jihad can not be accomplished unless the UMMA has reached a proper state after privite and society reaching a point in internal jihad. This a hard lesson, graped by many of the first generation of Arab revivalist in Egypt and elsewhere.
Hamas was on that path, as was Hizbollah, until their leadership was taken over by jihadis in the 1980’s. Now thie lines are well blurred by false Zidduk work. This has lead many older Islamic thinkers to believe the movements as we know them are the dead walking - but Wahhabism in Pakastan was believe to be dead several times.
K

Posted by: kuzriel at September 30, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #185445

Kuzriel,
I have always been a supporter of Israel. Not too long ago, someone posted a link (damn! I’ve GOT to learn how to do that) to “Peace, propaganda, and the promised land”. I watched the entire thing. My attitude about the Israeli/Palestinian situation has changed as a result.

You seem like a reasonable, educated person. I would be interested in your thoughts after viewing this. Is there anyone out ther that knows of this video (and knows how to post a link) that could help out?

Posted by: Steve Miller at September 30, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #185450

I know a lot more that have gone the other way.
The poverty you see in Arab countries are their doings. Twice Israel built places of work between Jewish and Arab onclaves - twice they were boycotted by the Palestinians then destroyed. When the Israelis left Gaza houses and agricultural stuff was left for their use - what happened - DESTROYED by Hamas “workers”
Israel cannot be blamed for Arafat and his brother’s corruption. The PA was elected, Arafat was put in office by the Arab league support. Millions of $$$ into his own account, even a bow;ing alley in Queens.
The Israelis have had it, that is why the fence - followed now by Saudi Arabia, and soon Jordan.
K

Posted by: Kuzriel at September 30, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #185499

There is no such thing as a political solution to this war on terror. The only solutoin is to kill them before they kill us. Unfortunately we will lose American lives in the process. But that happens in war. Osama and the rest of the terrorist groups don’t care what country you come from, they don’t care what race you are or your political affiliations. If you do not agree with thier ideology they will shoot you in the head. PERIOD!!!! Those of you who oppose President Bush need to put your political issues aside and hope that the current addministration and those who follow don’t lose this war IN IRAQ. You will surely know when it happens because those islamic terrorists will be suicide bombing you and your nextdoor neighbor!!!! These people don’t want to negotiate. They don’t want us to leave thier middleast countries, they don’t care about foreign policy, wether you are republican or democrat. If you do not believe what they believe word for word I/you should be killed.

Posted by: bob at October 1, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #185517

Steve/Kuzriel - “Peace, propaganda, and the promised land” The link is below.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696%20&hl=en

Steve - I posted the link awhile back. Maybe it was my post you were refering to. To post a link, just copy and paste it in. Not as hard as you think.


Posted by: Stefano at October 1, 2006 5:19 AM
Comment #185527

I’ve seen this before. It is quite bias and is quite left wing. There is an occupation, for the third time. But the poverty and unemployment is not Israel’s fault. If the film had looked into the leadership, then we can talk. Are the Israeli’s responsible for the same levels throughout the rest of the Arab world? Gaza was Egypt’s problem until 1973. Jewish people came to Gaza and took land that was public land under Egypt and quite barren. That land became a place you can’t believe unless you were there. For two years I worked as a public health investigator. The Tomatoes, the flowers - even the beaches. Many “Palestinians” worked in the Greenhouses, for good wages. A zone was made for workers in manufacturing where no tax was applied to the goods produced there.
In the Jewish community there was order and police (boarder guards) up the gazzo. There were 7, count them, 7 Israelis working as go-betweens, represenitives of Israel’s goverment to Gaza. Gaza had its own counsil, its own public works and its own ministry of health.
Hannunes and Gaza city were a mess. Garbbage in the streets, waste water ran down the center. Communicable disease was ramped. Both years I worked there Polio hit them hard. They refused Vaccines and they refused to clean up the area. King Hussain actually noted my name as someone who was “there to change the Arab character of the ‘territories’”. Thank g-d for Queen Nore she let the king have it and sent people to learn public health ideas and get vaccines. When I left Gaza Hamas didn’t have Israel on the map, let alone Gaza. Hamas began to move in in the 1990’s and basically began to attack the PA’s corruption. It did this by establishing “Public assistance” programs. You got it if you supported them. Kids were now going to school - yes they learned to read and write. But they learned to hate, and even blow themselves up. When Israel gave up Gaza for the 3d time HAMAS took over and destroyed all the infastructure and 30 years of hard work to make things profitable.
Your film is thus one sided. Look at it this way - riots, looting, destruction of property - who do you call for to get order? The Good Humorman?
This movement of Arab nationalism and revival is over 100 years old. Talk with the first generation, in the 1960’s generation. They will tell they failed because their attention was focused on “Israeli occupation” and not providing goods and service for the people they claimed to represent.

(By the way, in another discussion it was brought up that my spelling and grammar were bad. Forgive me. English is my 5th language. I learned to speak it as a child but never learned to write so well. Normally I communicate with my Children in Hebrew, My wife in French and my students in Arabic or Hebrew. I have retired now and I hope will improve with age.)
k

Posted by: kuzriel at October 1, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #185538

kuzriel

Very Interesting post with some first hand information. Yes the film is certainly one sided. But my concern here in the US is that we never discuss these issues when talking about the Isreali-Palestinian conflict.

It always appears to be from a pro-Isreali perspective. The occupation, poverty and other issues, regardless of cause or fault, is never discussed. And unless we address this, there will never be peace. Isreal is the easy target (justified or not)for their problems. It always seems that Isreal is the victim and the Palestians are the perpetrator.

I just think we need a more honest and balanced discussion.

Posted by: Stefano at October 1, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #185543

One has to admit that the Palestinian National movements were born out of its struggle with Zionism. But its charactor has always been connected to specific villages,neighbourhoods and even houses. for the Palestinian tribes were difficult to grasp, let alone a nation. A typical Palestinian curse is “May your house be destroyed. Say you remove some one from Sataf to a village across the street - that is regarded as Exile.They may live in the same land, speak the same language, go to Mosque but they regard themselves as rootless and deprived of a homeland.
In 1988 King Hussain lost his sway over the inabitants of the “teritories” and graaped the implications of an intifada ( actually a term uses in divorce of the rebellious woman). He proclaimed to the world the West Bank was no longer part of Jordan.
Until the Arab defeat in 1967 few scholars or leaders showed more than a passing intrest in anything “Palestinian”. The identity of “Palestinian” was a problem for Jordan. King Abdullah was assasinated by one - the majority seemed to be of the Husseini Clan (related to Hitler’s Imam). It was this family that lead the anti-Jordanian, anti-Jewish and anti-western elements of Arab society. They were even anti-wahhabi. They gathered the Ba’aths, the communists, the National Socialists and varrious radical movements we know today. In 1964 this union was under Arafat and already splintering.
K

Posted by: Kuzriel at October 1, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #185559

Kuzriel

Interesting insight and perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: Stefano at October 1, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #185566

Steve here’s more info for you

Which came First Terrorism or Occupation?

Posted by: Keith at October 1, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #185597

Yeah! Lets get out of Iraq.Thats all you say but THEN WHAT? Thats what I thought.You dont have a plan do ya?Talk,Talk Talk…Well I rather fight them assholes over their then here in front of my children.If it was up to the left thier would already be a prayer rug in every amercan house.Oh! wait their might be already I wonder whos?

Posted by: Bill at October 1, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #185601

Thanks, Keith.
We all would do well to look hard at both sides of every issue. In my mind, the jury’s still out on the Palestinian/Israeli front. While I have a HUGE problem with blowing up a bunch of young girls out in front of an Israeli disco, some of the methods used by the Israelis seem pretty harsh too. Bulldozing homes, I.E.D.’s set near kids. Like I said though I” not sure who to believe 100 percent.

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 1, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #185646

I think the point that “The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty,” said al-Masri, according to Fox News.” Thats being missed here is they are sending their terrorists to Iraq and not Chicago or LA. Misdirection at its finest because its working. Tell you what leave the plummbing to the plumber the welding to the welder and the war fighting to the war fighters. Sometimes just because you think you know all the answers you dont you might not even understand the questions.

Posted by: Randal Berry at October 2, 2006 1:38 AM
Post a comment