Terrorists in haystacks

“Terrorists do not wear a special uniform.. They are like other people, like other youths. They are not easy to recognize. Sometimes, finding a terrorist in the 14 million population of Tehran is like finding a needle — not in a haystack, but in 10 haystacks.”
Mahmoud Alavi, Iranian intelligence minister
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/world/middleeast/iran-kurds-terrorist-attacks.html

The Shia and Sunni differences have are similar to the Protestant/Catholic differences of Northern Ireland.  However, some Iranians take a more tolerant view of extremists.  For example, Jalal Jalalisadeh, a former member of the Iranian from Kurdistan takes a stance that many around the world could emulate.  Salafis are an ultra-conservative group in parts of Iran. “They were peaceful. As long as the Salafi groups are not taking arms, they must be tolerated,” ibid.

"A child killed in a bombing while eating ice cream in Baghdad is the same as child killed in a bombing while attending a pop concert in Manchester.”
Shasta Aziz, Globe and Mail, 2017-06-05
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/countering-extremism-requires-political-honesty-from-theresa-may/article35204868

Do not call terrorists Muslim or Islamic.  They are no more "Muslim" than the Ku Klux Klan is “Christian”

2016: The first Presidential election where we have only one choice

Donald Trump keeps digging himself in a bigger and bigger hole.  The latest being his fight with the Khan family over the patriotism of Muslims.  Attacking a Gold Star mother: how low can you get?

He keeps changing his tune on this issue as he has so many times before.  Is a man who can get angry at a small slight a person whose finger we want on the nuclear button?

Hillary Clinton is not my favorite possible person for President, but she now stands as the only possible choice for President.  I don't like dynastic politics, but we have to consider all the government experience that she has had compared to that of Donald Trump.

Staying away is not an option.  If you stay away, you might give the election to Trump.  There are too many people that live in his fantasy world that will be voting.

In addition to voting for Clinton, you can hold her feet to the fire by reminding her of her vision with her 1969 Wellesley College commencement address.  See http://www.ttbook.org/book/hillarys-first-speech-historic-1969-audio-reveals-blueprint-her-life.  Warning, you'll have to listen to a lot of commentary before you get the speech in its entirety. 

Muslims do speak out!

Too often someone writes or says that Muslims should speak out against the violence committed in the name of Islam.

Are these complainers in a cocoon?  Muslims do speak out about the violence.  The complainers probably don’t read what is even in local dailies.

Maybe they spend too much time on Fox News.  Someone put on the Coffee Party site a snippet from Fox News of an interview with Reza Aslan, author of “Zealot: Jesus of Nazareth”.  The interviewer kept repeating “How can a Muslim write about Jesus?”  In another era, many would ask, “How can a black women be an interviewer on TV?”  Or today, “How can a non-Muslim write about Islam?”  or “How can a non-Muslim even ask questions about Islam?”

As to speaking out, many Muslims do.  A group of Muslim scholars in Britain condemned the violence and the cartoons both but counseled patience and restraint.

One writer who stands out from several that I have read recently is Ahmed Tharwat, a broadcaster and writer in the Twin Cities.  He wrote “I am Ahmed – non-terrorist”.  He wrote for many Muslims that he is tired of being held responsible for the actions of a few out of over a billion Muslims.

An open letter to President George W. Bush

Originally published in Reader Weekly
December 4, 2003

Note: most of the links are no longer available.

Dear President Bush:

You have said dozens of times that you will “do whatever it takes” to win the war on terrorism, the latest being when you signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 on November 24, 2003. (1)  At that time you said, “We will do whatever it takes to keep our nation strong, to keep the peace, and to keep the American people secure.”

I submit that you are not doing everything it takes to do all that you promised.  Here are some ideas of what it takes to leave Iraq satisfactorily and continue the “war on terrorism.”

First, accelerate training in Arabic.  I have read that the Army is short of Arabic translators (2)(3) and I have read how effective good translators are (see Stars and Stripes among others).  I have also seen it reported that troops have killed unarmed people because they could not speak Arabic and had no translator.  However, nowhere in your speech or in the Defense Authorization Act do the words Arabic or language appear.

You should not only accelerate training for more Arabic translators, but you should provide training for all Iraq-based troops to learn as much Arabic as they wish.  This latter could be with CDs, small-classes, or just a mass distribution of phrase books.  I know from personal experience that speaking the local language even a little bit builds better relations.

Second, you should start reading newspapers and magazines and stop depending on your staff to filter the news for you.  The best you can depend on your staff to do is to tell you what they think you want to hear, not what you need to know.  I recommend that you read The New York Times, The Washington Post, The American Spectator, The Progressive Magazine, Stars and Stripes, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper’s Magazine, The Daily Star of Lebanon, and Dawn of Pakistan, especially the editorials in all of these.  They should give you a very wide range of opinions to provide you a much better basis for your decisions.  Among recent articles I highly recommend is “Tour of Duty” in the December issue of The Atlantic Monthly; it includes accounts of now-Sen. John Kerry’s experiences as a Navy officer on river duty in Viet Nam.  It will give you some insight in the disconnect between what is happening on the battlefield and what is happening in the Pentagon.  Read some books on recent Iraq history – an example is Sandra Mackey’s The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein.  Iraq is a very complex country with a long history of domination by outsiders.  One cannot make judgments about Iraq without understanding these complexities.

Third, have a long private talk with General John Abizaid, no advisors present, just you and him.  Let him tell you what he thinks needs to be done to get Iraqis governing themselves peacefully.  Not only does General Abizaid speak Arabic, but he has lived and studied in the Middle East.  He also has made a specialty of unconventional warfare using semi-independent units rather than big coordinated units.  This style is much better for fighting small-scale insurgencies such as occur in Iraq on a daily basis.

Fourth, have a long private talk with Senator John Kerry.  Again no advisors.  He should be able to give you a good understanding about what really happens in war.  He understands that what headquarters thinks is happening or wants to happen is not always what is really happening or should happen.

Sixth, rename the “War on Terror”.  The struggle against terrorism really is more a police investigation on a massive scale.  Are you going to bomb Germany, France, Turkey, England, and Canada because they are “harboring” terrorists?  Bombs did not arrest those who were found in these countries, police did. On the other hand bombs dropped on civilians are a good recruiting tool for any resistance.

Finally, don’t worry about re-election.  Which would you rather do - pass your successor in 2005 a plan that is bringing about your goals or pass your successor in 2009 a mess that is spiraling out of control?  Short-term actions that may please a large number of voters may work against long-term interests that would “keep our nation strong, … keep the peace, and … keep the American people secure.”  If you are going to do whatever it takes, do the right thing.

(1) Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, November 24, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html

(2) "Expert: Lack of Arabic hurts U.S. in Iraq", Washington Times, July 25, 2003, http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030725-032406-5262r.htm

(3) "U.S. 'desperately in need' of Arabic speakers to hold Iraq", World Tribune.com, July 9, 2003, article no longer available online

P.S. May 26, 2007, one of my sources for this article was "Iraq Today, The Independent Voice of Iraq".  I can find no direct reference to it.  The URL http://www.iraq-today.com cannot be found.  The editor, Hassan Fattah, left Iraq in March or April 2004 when his situation became too dangerous.  See "Goodbye, Baghdad", by Hassan Fattah, published in the July/August 2004 Columbia Journalism Review.  This article is not available directly from CJR.

©2003, 2007 Melvyn D. Magree

Appropriate punishment for Islamic and other terrorists

Many terrorists of any ilk act in the name of an ideology, whether it be religious or political.  They think they are doing their cause a favor by killing as many people as possible who don't believe in their cause or just happen to be in the way as they kill their targets.

Many think these terrorists should be executed if caught, with or without a trial, fair or otherwise.  But this is just what some of them want – to be martyrs to their cause.  An example is former Major Nidal Hassan who has been sentenced to death for shooting and killing thirteen people at Fort Hood.  This probably won't happen and really shouldn't happen.

He probably won't be executed because the military hasn't executed any active military personnel for some time and the appeal process can take decades.  He shouldn't be executed because this is just what he claimed to want – to be a martyr to his cause.

I don't think terrorists should be subjected to forced watching of similar crimes like that in Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange".  I do think they should be subjected to repeated recitations of the non-violent portions of their beliefs.  For example,

“O People of the Book! [Jews, Christians, Muslims] Come to what is common between us and you: That we worship none but God, that we associate no partners with Him, that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords other than Allah. If then they turn back, say: 'Bear witness that we are bowing to Allah’s will.'" From "The Qur'an and Tolerance of Christianity and Judaism", Islam Online.

The same kind of tolerance can be found in the Talmud and the Bible.

Narrow interpretations or even misinterpretations are found over and over again down through the centuries.  Catholics killed Protestants and Jews.  Protestants killed Catholics and Jews.  Jews killed the worshippers of Ba'al.  Christians killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades.  Muslims killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades.  Muslims seem to be killing more Muslims in these times than they are killing Christians.  All this despite the fact that the text they hold in common states unequivocally "Thou shalt not kill"!  It does not state "That shalt not kill any who believe as you do but thou mayest kill those who believe even slightly differently."

So, if terrorists are jailed and subjected to similar recitations, videos of their listening to these should be made widely available.  If the terrorists wish to make any statements recanting their previous beliefs, then these statements should be widely circulated.

I know this is wishful thinking and probably won't happen.  But those of us who believe that these three faiths (and others) have many tenets of generosity can avoid general statements of hate and counter those who do spew hate.

How do you spell terrorist? C-O-W-A-R-D

A terrorist is a coward who is willing to kill defenseless people because of some grudge he has.

In Nairobi, Kenya, a coward is a member of Al Shabab walking into a shopping mall and killing unarmed men, women and children because he has a grievance with the government of those unarmed people.  Ironically Al Shabab claimed that women were not part of the attackers because they shelter their women.

All over the Middle East, a coward is a member of some sub-group of a religious sect that doesn't like even the existence of a competing sect, be it Shia, Sunni, or Christian.  This coward believes it is OK to drive a car bomb into a mosque or church killing dozens if not hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children.

A coward is member of a faction or a government who is willing to shell or gas an area where some opposing fighters may be.  It doesn't matter if men, women, and children who are not opposing fighters are killed or injured.

A coward is a member of a government who is willing to send drones to bomb suspected terrorists regardless of how many women and children might be in the strike zone.

A coward is a member of government who is willing to send shells or missiles into a populated area to dissuade another government to not do something or other.  Men, women, and children will be killed who have little or no say in what that government does.

A coward is a member of a government who is willing to send nuclear missiles to destroy a city of another government because the first government has some dispute with the second government.  Again, men, women, and children will be killed who have little or no say in what the second government does.

When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

Disconnect on surveillance?

As I easily stopped for a yellow light this afternoon, a driver in the other lane came whipping by me and went through the light that had already turned red.  If there had been a surveillance camera at that intersection, he or she would soon be receiving a ticket.

However, many consider robo-cops a bad idea, an infringement of rights, etc. etc.

My question is, of the people who protest about being caught disobeying a traffic law, how many are all for the excessive NSA surveillance of telephone and internet usage?

In the first case, a person is caught doing something illegal.  In the second case, a person may only be thought to be doing something illegal.

Whether one is killed or injured by a terrorist with a bomb or killed or injured by somebody running a red light is rather a moot point.  One is just as dead or hurt by either illegal activity.

Whatever happened to foreign students and foreign languages?

I wrote the above title and the text below in response to "On campus beat: University of Minnesota and EMC team up to teach world languages", Lydia Coutré, Star Tribune, 2013-06-25.  http://www.startribune.com/local/212860091.html  I submitted it as a letter to the editor, but the Strib did not publish it.  Apropos foreign languages, the Strib put the accent mark on Coutré's name.

When I was in college students coming from another country were foreign students.  They were welcomed by many and considered part of the student body.  I remember eating often with three Arabs whose conversation went beyond their complaints about Israel.

Now their grandchildren studying in the U.S. would be called "international students".  But if a student body at a U.S. school included students from other countries, wouldn't all the students be international students?

When I worked and lived in Europe, I wasn't an international worker but a foreigner.  I was called Ausländer, utlänning, étranger, straniero, and various forms of American.  And gaijin (outside person) when I visited Japan.

When I was in school and beyond, languages other than English were called foreign languages; now it is the fashion to call these other languages world languages, no matter how widely they are spoken.  I would consider only a handful of languages world languages; English, French, Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese are spoken in a large number of countries.  Swedish and Japanese would be local languages, spoken almost exclusively on a daily basis only in their countries of origin.

No matter what you call other languages, Lydia Coutré is right to point out that Americans are woefully illiterate in foreign languages.  We need to stop considering foreign languages a frill.  Being multi-lingual gets you friends, business, and security.  I wonder if there would have been fewer terrorists if our schools could have provided more Arab speakers.

Muslims do speak out; anyone listening?

See "An Interviewer Asked A Muslim Leader About The Murder Of A British Soldier.  Here's How He Answered".  Imam Ajmal Masroor gave a heartfelt condemnation of people who want to injure or kill others in the name of religion.

The comments on Facebook are all over – from support to blind, sweeping opposition.  One I like best is from Rafi Uddin Ahmed:

"I agree 100%.
The Muslim leadership in US has been condemning these terrorist acts for years and can not get any media coverage. We work closely with FBI, TSA and Homeland security in safeguarding our country. Majority of foiled terrorist attacks were a result of tips from muslim community."

See also "Violent militants are not Muslims", Fouza Saeed, Star Tribune, 2013-05-28.

She didn't write this phrase, but I think the best term for those she describes is "pseudo-Muslim criminals.

See also "Qur'an burning - Questions for Muslim protesters"

Muslims do speak out

Some people, I hope they are few, complain that Muslims don't speak out about terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam.  Did we have a lot of Christians in the South who spoke out against the Ku Klux Klan?  How many southerners were as strong defending the rights of blacks as Atticus Finch of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird"  How many of us speak out against anybody who unfairly speaks ill of another person or group?

Like any very large group, Muslims have a diverse set of views.  Too often, like in other groups, the rigid dominate any discourse.  Iran under the Shah was a rigid dictatorship that allowed quite a range of freedom in non-political behavior.  Iran under the Ayatollahs is a rigid sort-of democracy that constricts freedoms in many non-political behaviors.  Unfortunately, it has become even more rigid and even less democratic since the election fraud of 2009.

As seen in the riots in Egypt, Muslims have a wide range of opinions of what government should be about, not all think that Shari'a law is a legitimate source of government.  Remember also that more people showed up to mourn the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi than took part in the attack or justified it.

See also "Exploiting the Prophet", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2012-09-22

One group of Muslims has set out to be a more open religious group that allows for more diversity and less gender or other sexual divisions.  It is Muslims for Progressive Values.  Among other practices prayer meetings are not segregated by gender and women do lead prayers.  They were supposedly changing their website on January 25th, but as of this posting it hasn't happened.  If the "Keep It Halal" video is not on the site when you visit, you might find it on YouTube at http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=44UsNBJE2ho&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D44UsNBJE2ho.

The world's largest democracy tries terrorists in open court

The surviving Mumbai terrorist has confessed in open court with reporters present. The trial will proceed to make sure all the facts are revealed publicly. See "Mumbai Attacker's Trial Will Proceed", New York Times, 2009-07-23.

Meanwhile, in the world's second largest democracy, suspected terrorists are held for years without a civil trial.