Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Naming confusion

Maybe I’m the wrong person to point this out but whenever we try to read about Muslims who are suspected of some wrongdoing, and are provided with background and contacts of the suspects, we – the readers – cannot follow closely because their names are so different, hard to read, pronounce and therefore distinguish. This is not a stance against one’s culture, but an observation.

Consider the latest trial of S├ími Al Arian. The bastard mass murderer of Jews. The trial lasted for several months, and whenever the public tried looking into the trial details, we were overwhelmed with an incapability to follow on relationships between suspects. Once again, not to bring any “racist” argument to the table, but just to state: Too many “new” and “unique” names cause minds to drift away and lose focus of the horrendous facts.

I’m a frequent reader of Front Page Magazine. There are many articles there that provide great detail on how and who is involved with what. Many other sources try to let Americans know what is going on and are providing us with names and locations which are phonetically mimicking a completely different language and set of pronunciations. To many, “it all sounds like Chinese”; “Chinese” in the sense of it being unreadable, therefore being unable to focus on the timeline presented in the articles.

Here is a solution, not necessarily practical, possibly silly: First state at the beginning of the article that names of real individuals are replaced to allow easy reading and point readers to the bottom of the article for the real references. Or perhaps mention the names once when first encountered, but add something like “Jallal Bin Hamid, whom we shall address as Mr.X”. Then replace foreign names with neutral local names. Order the new names by the Alpha-Bet. For example, replace Abdullah Shalah, Said Abu Tier, Daud Hamid Jamil, with “Andy AS.”, “Bart SAT.”, and “Carl DHJ.”. I bet CAIR would indorse this solution, since it would divert the negativity of the report from the Muslims for which the report is about.

No matter what the solution is, keep it brief and easy to remember and understand. I will contrast my observation here with the way main stream news agencies report today.

Discredited world news agencies such as AP and Routers routinely omit any identifying information from perpetrators. This includes ethnic identity. A true and clear example would direct you to the reporting on the recent “suburban” French Riots. In my opinion this is not to be brief or to assist easy reading, but rather a way to whitewash terrorists. For example, instead of saying “Muhammad and Nidal, Arab Palestinian members of Hamas, a well established self proclaimed Terror group blew them selves up in a crowd of innocent Jewish civilians of Russian descent at a Disco.” They would report “X amount of people died in an ongoing middle east violence incident. Umm Jihad, mother of one of the victims praised her son as a hero and complained the Israeli Occupying army prevented her from visiting her sons place of death”. Or report: “Oppressed minority members participated in a violent action in response to the suffering the Israeli occupation has imposed on them”. This laughable way of reporting, despite the fact that the example is bogus, is the norm among the main stream news agencies.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

What’s missing in our involvement with Iraq? Vision and problem solving

The rhetoric regarding how Iraq is advancing, and the residents have shown that they do not wish to participate in a civil war are blatant lies. One cannot ignore the daily news of deadly attacks and random bodies at the street. One cannot ignore what the leaders of the tribes and religion are saying. They are saying – fight!

And what do we do? Try to maintain the false unity of a country filled with brotherly hate. I am not surprised that the Iraqis hate each other. This is their culture. The false prophets who have told the west that Iraqis can unite have either intentionally mislead or forgot what its like.

After the world wars, the world leaders convened and authorized comities to provide suggestion on how to resolve national conflicts. The recommendation was usually to impose population exchanges and dismember countries into smaller nations. I am not a historian, and have little time to claim when and where did the following break apart, but they did, one way or another: Greece and Turkey, India and Pakistan, North and south Cyprus, Israel and Jordan. I do know that in most instances, the separation was not complete, and was done without agreement between sides. This lead to ongoing deadly conflicts. (Did you notice that in all cases the separation was between Muslims and non Muslims?)

More recently, In Yugoslavia, the world nations did not stop to try to keep the country united. Cheers were raised for Croatian independence, Bosnian, and most recent hails are raised for Kosovo.

Other similarities can be found in what used to be Czechoslovakia, were Czech, and the Slovaks, who share the same language, but differ in character sets (Latin versus Cyrillic), could not bear to share the same nation.

This brings me back to the topic of Iraq. A nation kept united for purposes of sharing profits from oil, while a slow creeping civil war seems inevitable. The hate in the minds of the Iraqis will sooner rather than later be pointed directly at us. I do not agree with those who say we are occupiers. But for the barbarians who butcher each other for not buttering their toast on the right side (see Dr. Sues), any excuse is a good excuse to perpetrate horrific violence, especially towards infidels as we are.

Divide and conquer. But instead of conquer – let them battle it out. Small fragments of former Iraq are a guarantee for a safer future and a safer world.

Friday, March 10, 2006

The stupidest headline award

For some reason, some articles bubbled up claiming that the Madrid Bombing has "absolutely no ties to Al Qaeda". Either the journalists are extremely gullible, or the Spanish officials are doing their best to spread some butter on this burnt toast.

You don't have to prove a connection, when it is clearly declared. For a message to have actually been delivered from Bin Laden and Co' to his "friends" in Spain several things could have happened which might not end up as tangible evidence:
1. A messenger could have delivered a note. Some tourist, unknowingly passed a note from his Imam to a person he doesn't know. Try finding that tourist, or the note. There is no reason for a trace to exist there.
2. Al Jazira routinely broadcasts messages from terrorists. Some hidden messages could be encoded in the speeches. Some obvious messages could also be delivered and go undetected.
3. Phone calls from phone booths (I’m not sure there are anymore in Spain) are not always detectable
4. Encrypted electronic instant messages
5. Public posts on Islamic web sites can (and usually do) contain hidden messages on strategies, tactics and logistics.

It doesn’t take much to come up with ways to deliver messages undetected, especially not to a destination in a free society. A society that does nothing to defend itself from an unknown enemy such as the Islamic Terror.

Above all, the headlines raise the obvious conclusion that neither the journalists, the politicians nor the investigators care to find such a connection. It sounds like they think this stupid headline is good news somehow.