Posted by: ed ||
07/29/2006 20:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Excellent column. Suggest it be carried over until tomorrow.
"Not only is this analysis wrong - if the Israelis are such imperialists, why did they withdraw from Lebanon for six years, only returning when threatened once again? How many genocidal regimes do you know that have a free press and free elections? - it is also morally imbecilic."
No kidding. Nice to see a European so plainspoken, logical and knowledgeable of history.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/29/2006 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I agree, this column is very good.
When I read or hear or watch the frecnh and british media, nowadays, I notice with amazement that they continue to blame it all on Israel, as they have done for years. Those people really refuse to think and understand obvious facts. So, it seems that antisemitism's roots in Europe are still deeply rooted in its soil.
After this, reading or watching American media is like breathing oxygen after almost drawning. Even if I dont agree with all American analysis, I usually dont find in them those gentle (and less gentle) slanders that European put in their narratives concerning Israel.
#3
Article: Part of the same attitude-striking is the attack on Tony Blair for being the "poodle" of America, instead of pursuing an independent foreign policy.
I can never figure out why it's better to be a poodle of the Muslim world than a "poodle of America". On one side, Britain's former heathen subjects and on the other, Albion's seed and Britain's kinsmen. It should be a no brainer.
Andrew Stuttaford, posting at National Review's "The Corner":
WASHINGTON, July 27 /U.S. Newswire/ The U.S. Army recently discharged a highly regarded Arabic linguist who was the target of an anonymous email "outing" campaign. Former Sergeant Bleu Copas was stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., and was a member of the prestigious 82nd Airborne Division...His dismissal, under the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel, brings the total number of Arabic language specialists dismissed under the ban to at least 55. Neither Copas nor his command know who was the source of the email campaign.
So far as I can recall, one of the problems faced by the US in dealing with the terrorist challenge and the war in Iraq is an insufficient number of Arabic language specialists. Whatever one may think of the current federal rules governing homosexuals in the military, applying them so strictly now (I'm assuming that the press release gives an accurate account of what happened) seems to reveal an absurd sense of priorities, very September 10th one might say...
As a liberal Democrat, I listened carefully to the opposition voiced by many Democratic senators to the nomination of John Bolton as our chief representative to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton has been representing us at the United Nations since August. During the current Middle East crisis, I have been able to listen for myself to what Mr. Bolton has been saying at the United Nations.
On the basis of his performance, I have become a Bolton supporter. He speaks with moral clarity. He is extremely well prepared. He is extraordinarily articulate. He places the best face on American policy, particularly in the Middle East during this crucial time.
During the late 1960s, I worked closely with our then-representative to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg gave up his lifetime seat on the Supreme Court in order to serve at the United Nations in an effort to end the war in Vietnam. He was hopeful that he could make a greater contribution to his country at the United Nations than on the high court.
He too was our representative during a critical period in the Middle East. It was Ambassador Goldberg who helped draft the famous Resolution 242, which has served as the basis for Mideast peace efforts since 1967.
During the 1970s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan served with distinction in that position. He too stood up to the enemies of the United States and other democracies, such as Israel. When, during his term, the General Assembly introduced its most overtly bigoted resolution equating Zionism with racism, it was Mr. Moynihan who fought tirelessly, if ultimately futilely, against its passage. He continued to identify rampant anti-Semitism as the scourge of the United Nations until his death three years ago.
Now, there's John Bolton, who follows in that tradition with distinction. Were he not to be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at this crucial juncture it would send a powerful message to the international community that Senate Democrats do not stand behind our policy in the Middle East. It would be seen as undercutting American policy toward Israel. Even if that were a misunderstanding, it would have a devastating impact on the world's perception of America's solidarity with Israel.
Following his nomination, Senate Democrats asked the White House to release documents prepared under Mr. Bolton's supervision during his tenure working for the administration. The president ultimately released some of the documents for senior Democrats to review, albeit with redactions. I agree with the demand by the Democrats and wish the Bush administration would be more forthcoming, but I believe that it would be a mistake at this time for the Democrats to hold the Bolton nomination hostage to this dispute. The senators have had a year to observe and evaluate Mr. Bolton directly on his performance as our ambassador. They can intelligently vote based on what he has done at the United Nations and not based on documents related to his role as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
What remains of last year's nomination battle, though, is what I suspect to be the real reason that some Democrats oppose the Bolton nomination. That is, they felt uncomfortable with Mr. Bolton's oft-expressed and blunt skepticism over the United Nations' legal and moral authority. Mr. Bolton can even, at times, come off as "contemptuous of the U.N.," in Sen. Barbara Boxer's words.
But Mr. Bolton is right to be skeptical, and all the great U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations from Adlai Stevenson to Arthur Goldberg to Pat Moynihan to Jeane Kirkpatrick have shared that skepticism. Mr. Bolton is absolutely justified in pushing for reform of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic structure in Turtle Bay. As he once said, "If member countries want the United Nations to be respected ... they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect."
Most importantly, Mr. Bolton understands that his job is to represent the United States and our interests to the world, and not the other way around. When The Washington Post's Dana Milbank chided Mr. Bolton for "disparaging the very organization he would serve," the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto promptly corrected him by saying, "the American ambassador to the U.N. is supposed to serve America, not the U.N."
I have observed Mr. Bolton's performance with regard to Israel and its conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas. On many other fronts he has proved himself a staunch advocate of freedom and human rights specifically in Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. Some critics have argued that Mr. Bolton is better in his public role as advocate than in his behind-the-scenes role as conciliator. But at this point in history, the United States needs a public advocate who can further its case in the court of public opinion. No one does that better than John Bolton.
#1
Dershowitz must sit in front of a mirror at night and get into loud screaming matches with himself. The part of him that is a liberal democrat must just be in agony when faced with the part of him that fully backs Bush on foreign policy.
National identity poses itself theoretically as an insoluble problem in the context of previously colonized countries. The major components of state identity in Pakistan have been ideology of Pakistan which is the transformation of national identities of different nationalities to a so-called Pakistani Islamic identity by adjusting it to the requirements of ruling elite belonging to the dominant nationality and a strong centre doctrine which excluded the minority nationalities from the power structure of state. This state identity, having no rationale basis, had to be imposed by force and for this Pakistani armed forces took upon the responsibility and as a result Pakistan became a permanent experimental place for military dictatorship in South Asia. Implementation of this state identity, based on the propagation of a superfluous non-existing Islamic Ummah, by force resulted in hostility towards national aspirations of minority nationalities. The consequences were reflected in Pakistan becoming the bastion of Islamic fundamentalism and hatching place for international terrorism and jehadi activities and a centre of instability as a result of increased enmity between majority and minority nationalities. With the drastic changes in international polity in a post soviet and post September 11 milieu, Pakistani State is under tremendous pressure to reconsider the parameters of its state ideology and to reform its institutions of governance. From a realistic point of view it is clear that neither the majority nationality is prepared to give up its subjugating designs upon minority nationalities nor the state establishment is ready to replace the old irrational ideological parameters with a genuine and viable state identity. The conscious elements in the minority nationalities and international observers believe that the claims of a fundamental change in Pakistani state approach are merely deceptive tactics by state establishment to deceive the international community.
The present territorial states in postcolonial Asia and Africa were created by drawing artificial lines by colonial powers to create countries, uniting different ethnic identities in to one state negating the national and cultural aspirations of many nationalities. The State of Pakistan and its manufactured Muslim Pakistani identity reflect to the paradox of state national identity that is characteristic of many so-called national states created by imperialists after World War II in Asia and Africa. Pakistan came as a unique phenomenon in modern history. Its top leadership and bureaucracy came from northern India, having no cultural and social roots in the country. It was also unique that the language of a few hundred thousands emigrants was declared as the national and official language of a sovereign state. It was not only the ruling elite but also the very ideology of Pakistan was alien to the present nationalities comprising Pakistan. Proponent of Pakistan ideology, the Muslim League, a political party that was formed and groomed by British rulers in early 1906, had no popular support within the present geographical boundaries of country, a fact fully reflected in the pre-partition general elections. Only a section of Muslim minority in northern India was in the forefront for Pakistan movement, motivated in the hope that their future prosperity might be materialized in a separate new state.
Posted by: john ||
07/29/2006 07:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Solution is simple - Sindh and Kashmir goes to India, Balochistan goes to Iran (post regime change), the NWFP goes to Afghanistan, the remainder - Punjab, just seethes, disarmed of its missiles, nukes and other WMDs.
Posted by: john ||
07/29/2006 8:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You really want all these Muslims in India, John?
#4
The native Sindhis are quite industrious folk - natural businessmen.
The Punjani settlers in Kashmir and Sindh would of course go to Pak Punjab, where they belong.
The rump Pakistan woul be Pak Punjab - 100% seething muslims.
Posted by: john ||
07/29/2006 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
The Rediff Interview - Pakistan General (retd) Muhammad Nasir Akhtar
Lieutenant General Muhammad Nasir Akhtar (retd) served in the Pakistan army for 36 years and took part in two wars against India.
He was corps commandant, Karachi, before he was assigned a senior post at army headquarters in Rawalpindi. After retirement he settled in Lahore to run a business and tour the seminar circuit, one of which brought him to India as part of a delegation of retired military officers led by Zafar Chaudhry, former air chief marshal, Pakistan Air Force.
While upbeat about the peace process in an interview to Managing Editor (National Affairs) Sheela Bhatt, General Akhtar proudly proclaims that the Pakistan army is a Muslim army fighting for jihad.
How many wars you have fought?
I have fought two wars against India. In 1965 I was in the Rann of Kutch and then in the Chhamb area in Kashmir. In the 1971 war against India I was posted in Sialkot.
#2
This interview makes it clear that the only solution to militant Islam is complete and utter destruction of every one of it's believers and supporters.
I suggest using nukes on Mecca, Karchi, Islamabad, Tehran, plus maybe Riyad and Baghdad too, for good measure.
#3
I ain't there yet, not quite. But every time I read this kind of fanatical bullshit jihad talk it convinces me just a little bit more that we're on the wrong track with this war-- and that it will take much, MUCH harsher measures to convince the Islamoloonies to leave us the fuck alone-- completely, immediately, and permanently.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/29/2006 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bear in mind that General Ahktar isn't some bearded mullah or madrassa graduate. He is part of the english speaking elite.
He would have been born in British India, educated at the best schools, gone through officer training under British instructors, receieved further training in the UK or the USA etc.
But his Islamic ideology and identity trumps all that.
Posted by: john ||
07/29/2006 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ahem, You mean your Political movement cause it certainly is not religion.
The following items are required for a competent hanging.
1. A Gallows should be utilized having the following basic characteristics.
A. A floor height of at least nine (9) feet to allow for a minimum clearance of about one (1) foot on the drop.
B. A crossbeam height of nine (9) feet giving an approximate clearance of three (3) feet above the executee.
C. An opening and trap door of at least three (3) feet square to allow proper clearance for the executee.
D. Means of releasing the trap door. This is normally accomplished by utilizing two bolts under one side of the door which are actuated by a common mechanism, either linkage rods or cable.
E. Means for stopping the trap door swing after it has fallen. This is normally accomplished utilizing a mechanical metal spring catch or a counterweight and a "rope grabber".
F. An eyelet or fastening mechanism for the rope containing the Hangman's Noose.
2. Body Restraint. This is a waist strap containing two (2) wrist restraints. It is fabricated from 3000 lb. test nylon aircraft webbing two (2) inches wide and is fifty (50) inches long. It contains three (3) quick release fasteners (one [1] for the waist and one [1] for each wrist) all of which are adjustable from each side. The color is black with chrome fasteners.
3. Leg Restraint. This is an ankle strap which binds both ankles together. It is fabricated from 3000 lb. test nylon aircraft webbing two (2) inches wide and is thirty-six (36) inches long. It contains one (1) quick release fastener which is adjustable from both sides. The color is black with chrome fasteners.
4. Collapse Frame. This is a six by thirty (6 X 30) inch frame fabricated of square steel tubing. It contains three (3) body restraints measuring fifty (50) inches long by two (2) inches wide which are made from 3000 lb. test nylon aircraft webbing and contain three (3) quick release fasteners adjustable from both sides. (One [1] for each restraint.) The color of the frame and webbing is black and the fasteners are chrome. This is used in the event of a physical collapse by the executee and enables the personnel conducting the execution to transport him to the scaffold.
5. Hood. The hood is fabricated of black denim and has split sides enabling it to extend onto the chest and back. It is generally used, optionally, to cover the face of the executee. A similar hood is available for the executioner but has a hole for the eyes.
6. Mechanical Hangman's Knot. This is fabricated from a delrin cylinder and has two (2) longitudinal holes and a steel U-clamp to fasten the rope. It comes with a black denim cover which is fastened with velcro. It is a replacement for the Conventional Hangman's Knot to eliminate the problems in tying the knot. It, unlike the Conventional Hangman's Knot, never binds in operation.
7. Noose Sleeve. This is fabricated of denim and fastened with velcro. It is utilized to prevent tissue damage at the neck.
8. Rope. Standard hangman's rope of three-quarter (3/4) inch Manila hemp is available in thirty (30) foot lengths. This rope has been boiled and stretched in drying to eliminate all spring, stiffness or tendency to coil. The rope is also available in six-hundred (600) foot coils but cannot be treated when supplied thus.
9. Knot Lubricant. Knot lubricant must be used whether utilizing the Mechanical or Conventional Hangman's knot. With the Mechanical Hangman's Knot, silicone spray is recommended. With the Conventional Hangman's Knot, melted paraffin is recommended.
Words take on new meanings as Israel struggles to survive.
By Victor Davis Hanson
A ceasefire would occur should Hezbollah give back kidnapped Israelis and stop launching missiles; it would never follow a unilateral cessation of Israeli bombing. In fact, we will hear international calls for one only when Hezbollahs rockets are about exhausted.
Civilians in Lebanon have munitions in their basements and deliberately wish to draw fire; in Israel they are in bunkers to avoid it. Israel uses precision weapons to avoid hitting them; Hezbollah sends random missiles into Israel to ensure they are struck.
Collateral damage refers mostly to casualties among Hezbollahs human shields; it can never be used to describe civilian deaths inside Israel, because everything there is by intent a target.
Cycle of Violence is used to denigrate those who are attacked, but are not supposed to win.
Deliberate reflects the accuracy of Israeli bombs hitting their targets; it never refers to Hezbollah rockets that are meant to destroy anything they can.
Deplore is usually evoked against Israel by those who themselves have slaughtered noncombatants or allowed them to perish such as the Russians in Grozny, the Syrians in Hama, or the U.N. in Rwanda and Dafur.
Disproportionate means that the Hezbollah aggressors whose primitive rockets cant kill very many Israeli civilians are losing, while the Israelis sophisticated response is deadly against the combatants themselves. See excessive.
Anytime you hear the adjective excessive, Hezbollah is losing. Anytime you dont, it isnt.
Eyewitnesses usually arent, and their testimony is cited only against Israel.
Grave concern is used by Europeans and Arabs who privately concede there is no future for Lebanon unless Hezbollah is destroyed and it should preferably be done by the Zionists who can then be easily blamed for doing it.
Innocent often refers to Lebanese who aid the stockpiling of rockets or live next to those who do. It rarely refers to Israelis under attack.
The militants of Hezbollah dont wear uniforms, and their prime targets are not those Israelis who do.
Multinational, as in multinational force, usually means third-world mercenaries who sympathize with Hezbollah. See peacekeepers.
Peacekeepers keep no peace, but always side with the less Western of the belligerents.
Quarter-ton is used to describe what in other, non-Israeli militaries are known as 500-pound bombs.
Shocked is used, first, by diplomats who really are not; and, second, only evoked against the response of Israel, never the attack of Hezbollah.
United Nations Action refers to an action that Russia or China would not veto. The organizations operatives usually watch terrorists arm before their eyes. They are almost always guilty of what they accuse others of.
What explains this distortion of language? A lot.
First there is the need for Middle Eastern oil. Take that away, and the war would receive the same scant attention as bloodletting in central Africa.
Then there is the fear of Islamic terrorism. If the Middle East were Buddhist, the world would care about Lebanon as little as it does about occupied Tibet.
And dont forget the old anti-Semitism. If Russia or France were shelled by neighbors, Putin and Chirac would be threatening nuclear retaliation.
Israel is the symbol of the hated West. Were it a client of China, no one would dare say a word.
Population and size count for a lot: When India threatened Pakistan with nukes for its support of terrorism a few years ago, no one uttered any serious rebuke.
Finally, there is the worry that Israel might upset things in Iraq. If we were not in Afghanistan and Iraq trying to win hearts and minds, we wouldnt be pressuring Israel behind the scenes.
But most of all, the world deplores the Jewish state because it is strong, and can strike back rather than suffer. In fact, global onlookers would prefer either one of two scenarios for the long-suffering Jews to learn their lesson. The first is absolute symmetry and moral equivalence: when Israel is attacked, it kills only as many as it loses. For each rocket that lands, it drops only one bomb in retaliation as if any aggressor in the history of warfare has ever ceased its attacks on such insane logic.
The other desideratum is the destruction of Israel itself. Iran promised to wipe Israel off the map, and then gave Hezbollah thousands of missiles to fulfill that pledge. In response, the world snored. If tomorrow more powerful rockets hit Tel Aviv armed with Syrian chemicals or biological agents, or Iranian nukes, the international community would urge restraint and keep urging it until Israel disappeared altogether. And the day after its disappearance, the Europeans and Arabs would sigh relief, mumble a few pieties, and then smile, Life goes on.
LT.-GEN. (RET.) YA'ALON and Maj.-Gen. (Res.) Amidror
Discussions about security arrangements in Lebanon at the end of the war have included the proposal to station an international force in that country. Yet the UN has a very bad name in terms of confronting strong forces in areas where it is stationed.
The only logical basis for an international presence is the creation of a force whose primary mission will be assisting the Lebanese army in disarming Hizbullah (as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 1559). Such a force should be deployed close to Beirut, at Lebanese-Syrian border crossing, and deep in the Bekaa Valley.
An international force has no role in southern Lebanon along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israel is deployed along its northern border to defend itself and prevent the strengthening of Hizbullah, should it try to move southward.
To complement this deployment, there should be an agreement prohibiting the building of fortifications in southern Lebanon - as in the agreement between Israel and Egypt. In addition, the UN should establish a supervisory force like UNSCOM to deal with locating and clearing out Hizbullah's arms caches and preventing the building of new ones.
#2
Any international force would have to be an actual military force with orders to wipe out any military or terrorist activities in the region. This nonsense of delploying helpless observers or terrorist collaborators is worse than useless.
#3
The UN should establish a supervisory force like UNSCOM to deal with locating and clearing out Hizbullah's arms caches and preventing the building of new ones. The UN carried out this role reasonably well in Iraq and there is no reason it cannot do so in Lebanon.
UNSCOM inspectors were never armed and operated in a strictly controlled and very safe envirnoment. Saddam had crime well under control, I'll give him that, but nothing more. Pistol toting Iraqi "minders" accompanied all UNSCOM inspection trips and most interviews were video taped by the Iraqis. I might be wrong, but I don't think ANYONE would volunteer for an UNSCOM type mission to that particular region.
#4
"I doubt many countries would be keen to put their forces in such a situation."
Gee, I know how to handle that one, bernardz - let the Israelis do it. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/29/2006 20:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Lebanon's only pragmatic hope to protect its so-called, alleged "sovereignty", "independence" and "Islam/Diversity-based pluralism" is either under the national umbrella of the IDF, or a US/Brit-led UNCOM capable of military action against terror groups attempting to forcibly establish themselves outside of the democratic process. Else, Lebanon is incapable of being an organz nation-state and should be partitioned-given to those whom can best protect its borders and serve its ethnic groups. The Syrians and now Iranians know this, and want Lebanon for themselves.
Like, wow.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah, Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
HASSAN Nasrallah is in a quagmire. If, according to his own statements, Nasrallah knew Israel would attack Lebanon between September and November, if he was aware the Zionist enemy was ready for war and if he had received this information, which even the Pentagon and CIA could not receive, why did he give Israel an opportunity to launch the war before time by kidnapping two of its soldiers? Nasrallah has called for the beginning of a second phase of this war.
In what he calls Beyond Haifa, Nasrallah says his fighters will begin rocket attacks deeper into Israel, south of Haifa. We wonder if Nasrallah took any time to review his achievements in the first phase of the war against the enemy before thinking about the next. So far his only achievements have been causing the destruction of Lebanons infrastructure and killing of innocent Lebanese. If he begins the second phase the only result will be wiping out of whatever remains of Lebanons infrastructure and killing of the rest of the Lebanese.
Dictatorial decisions taken by a single man like Nasrallah, who gets instructions from foreign countries, will always lead to sorrow. The ongoing war in Lebanon is a clash between Israel and the United States on the one side, and Iran and Syria on the other. Although each party in the war wants to demonstrate its power in Lebanon, none of them wants its role to be recognized.
In a message to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, Chairman of Irans Expediency Council Akbar Rafsanjani has expressed his countrys support to Saudi Arabias proposal for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. This indicates Tehran has started worrying it may lose the war and wants to retreat. However, Nasrallah seems not to have received this information. So if he goes ahead with his so-called Beyond Haifa mission, he will be left alone.
The ceasefire proposed by Saudi Arabia is its own idea and not dictated by anybody else. After realizing its inevitable defeat, the Iran-Syria combine has changed its mind on the war and decided to support the Saudi proposal. Nasrallah wont be able to cover his mistakes by appearing on TV channels and claiming to possess unreasonable information, which cannot be proved by anybody. Nasrallahs claims give the impression that he has some spy satellites flying over the United States and Israel.
Nasrallahs dictatorship will sink like those of Saddam Hussein and other regimes, which did not know their true ability. Egyptians suffered under the dictatorship of the late Gamal Abdul Nasser who led them to war in 1967. The late Egyptian President believed Arab power can defeat Israel. However, the result was different as Arabs were handed out a humiliating defeat. Nasrallah, who is being remote-controlled by Iran and Syria, believes he is in the mold of many Arab leaders. But the fact is he is playing with fire.
#1
I hope the Lefties are satisfied - they finally have their quagmire in the Middle East.
What? It's not the quagmire they wanted?
Picky little bastards, aren't they.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/29/2006 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Of course, Sunni Arabs wouldn't mind overmuch if Hezbollah got its clock cleaned, along with the Syrian Alawite Shiites.
I just wonder if they will consider the opportunity for Sunnis if they were to help in getting rid of Shiite intrigues in the area, replacing them with "calm" Sunni influence.
Egyptians and Jordanians would seem to be naturals as "peacekeepers" in southern Lebanon.
WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden talks tough, but other mujahedeen laughed at him in Afghanistan because he would get scared and bolt when under fire, a new documentary claims.
"When bin Laden used to hear the explosions, he used to jump. He used to run away," his longtime friend Hutaifa Azzam says on "CNN Presents: In the Footsteps of Bin Laden."
"I still remember that me, and my elder and younger brothers, we used to laugh," says Azzam, the son of Abdullah Azzam, bin Laden's mentor in radical Islam.
Abdullah Azzam and bin Laden jointly created a mujahedeen support organization that later became al-Qaida. Azzam was assassinated in 1989, with Hutaifa's two brothers, in a bombing tied to Egyptians close to bin Laden.
Hutaifa's CNN interview - as well as interviews of others who had known bin Laden from childhood to when he made the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list - was his first with a Western broadcaster. The documentary, airing Aug. 23, is based on CNN terrorism expert Peter Bergen's book, "The Osama bin Laden I Know."
Bin Laden's friends describe a man who shed the materialism of a millionaire to become a survivalist. He readied himself for a life of jihad by idolizing gunfighters from old television shows and kung fu star Bruce Lee. "We would watch cowboy movies, karate movies . . . action movies," remembers Khaled Batarfi, schoolmate and soccer pal.
To toughen themselves, bin Laden and his pals galloped across the sands of Arabia without food or shelter. "We had our dates with us in our pockets and water - that's it. We sleep on the sand," says Jamal Khalifa, whose sister was bin Laden's first wife.
Though heir to a billion-dollar construction firm, bin Laden slept on the floor and shunned air conditioning and cold water, Bergen says on the program.
But not everyone in bin Laden's family liked life on the run after he declared war on the United States. Bergen says bin Laden's son Omar, in his mid-20s, was so upset by the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 that he left Afghanistan and moved home to Saudi Arabia. "[Omar] basically said to his father, "These attacks were dumb, they were stupid. Now we've got this 800-pound gorilla after us,' " Bergen says. "He washed his hands of his father."
Speaking to the Daily News this week from Kabul, Bergen said bin Laden "overreached on 9/11 and now surrounds himself with yes-men and believes his own propaganda that the U.S. is weak. . . . Unfortunately, he's still perhaps the most important leader in the Arab world."
surrounds himself with yes-men and believes his own propaganda that the U.S. is weak. . . . Unfortunately, he's still perhaps the most important leader in the Arab world
Which says a lot about the "Arab world."
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/29/2006 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
THE Brave Jihadi Warrior turns out to actually be...a pussy?
I am just sooooooo... shocked!
#3
"[Omar] basically said to his father, "These attacks were dumb, they were stupid. Now we've got this 800-pound gorilla after us,' " Bergen says. "He washed his hands of his father."
Notice he didn't condemn the attacks on moral grounds, just on practical grounds. Reminds me of the official Paleo "condemnations" of suicide bombings. Sounds like a "moderate muslim" to me.
#5
Whether these descriptions of Binny's behavior under fire are true or not, this is one of the few recent articles that suggest that we might finally have a propaganda effort under way, which makes me feel better.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
07/29/2006 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
No way - Osama's God and belief system/ideals aside, I've been in firefights wid Osama myself during the anti-Soviet War. He's stalwart and reliable - however, this is not to argue that, like many other fighters or even professional soldiers, he doesn't have his personal moments of overwhelming fear and uncertainty. i.e. something (s) else was on his mind instead of the battle or mission at hand. We all do. The role of military training is gener to train soldiers to overcome their own internal or spiritual-physical fears, uncertainties, and chaoses, even the innate "goodness" of their human soul, to defeat iff not destroy = kill the enemy, i.e. to commit surreal, anti-God/Moral/Spiritual "evil" and
"corruptions", etc. IMMORALITY IN THE NAME OF MORALITY, ANTI-HUMANISM IN THE NAME OF HUMANISM, ANTI-GOD IN THE NAME OF GOD, to survive, to cheat [violent]death, to fight again and again, and accomplish his warrior taskings/
objectives.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By JAMES GORDON MEEK, New York Daily News
