TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work; Protecting the Public From Flash Cards

The TSA recently defended air travelers from a grave danger: An American student named Nick George and the Arabic flash cards he carried in his backpack.

"...George said that Transportation Security Administration officers kept him in the screening area for what seemed like 45 minutes. Eventually a woman from the TSA arrived and began asking more questions, like how he felt about 9/11.

" 'Do you know who did 9/11?' he said that the woman asked.

"George said that he told her that it was Osama bin Laden, and that she responded smugly, 'Do you know what language Osama bin Laden spoke?'

"Soon after that a Philadelphia police officer arrived and told George to put his hands behind his back. Without explanation, he slapped handcuffs on him and led him away...."
(Philadeplphia Daily News, via philly.com)

Defending American Ignorance

In a way, the TSA's officers' and inquisitor's efforts are admirable.

In the face of a general awareness that foreigners are human beings, and easy communication with anyone on Earth through the Internet, they were valiantly striving to protect the air travelers from those who are so un-American as to actually learn something about those nasty Ay-rabs.

Nick George was a suspicious character, of course. Even though he looks like a "real American" (by, say, Timothy McVeigh's standards), Nick George had not only been in countries that weren't America, England, or (for the more tolerant "real Americans") France. George had been in Jordan, Egypt and Sudan.

And, Ay-rab words like "terrorist" and "explosion" were on his flash cards.

Nick George claimed that he had the flash cards so that he could learn to translate Al Jazeera - an Ay-rab news network.

What more proof did the TSA need? Here was someone who not only had been in places known to harbor Ay-rabs and other foreigners: he actually admitted to wanting to learn how to follow an Ay-rab television news network!

WASPs, "Real Americans," and the Rest of Us

Nick George is obviously not a "real American." Not by some standards.

For that matter, neither am I. By some standards.

Although I look 'Anglo,' and even have blue eyes, I'm no red, white, and blue-blooded WASP. Half my ancestors came from the British Isles - but they were Irish and Scots. One of them might have been deported from England - but that's another story. The rest of my forebears were from Norway - so by some standards, I'm simply not a "real American."

I can live with that.

Particularly since quite a substantial number of American citizens aren't WASPs - and don't even look the part. I'd like to think that the days when "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" and "American" were considered as synonyms by more than a few isolated crackpots are past - but incidents like Nick George's run-in with the TSA keep happening.

All-American Ignorance, Dangerous Knowledge, and the TSA

As I wrote in a post about dangerous technologies like LP gas and computers, "Knowledge is Power: and I Like Power."

I'm quite willing to believe that an American citizen might be interesting in learning Arabic - and even travel to the Middle East - without being a danger to others. Not physically dangerous, anyway. There's always the chance that someone like that might let others know that Ay-rabs were as human as "real Americans" are, weren't all terrorists, and weren't all Muslims.

"They're All Muslims," Nipple Rings, Flash Cards, and Common Sense

My guess is that quite a few TSA officers don't think that the flying public needs to be protected from nipple rings and flash cards. Or from the people who carry them.

On the other hand, in common with quite a few other Americans, some don't seem to realize that

• Not all Arabs are Muslims
• Not all Muslims are terrorists
• Not all terrorists are
  • Arabs
  • Muslims

I realize that this isn't as easy to remember - or deal with - as the 'all foreigners are suspicious,' 'all Arabs are Muslims / all Muslims are terrorists,' and "they're all Muslims" belief system that some cherish.

It's a big, complex world out there. Cherishing ignorance isn't a viable option. Neither is hectoring people who try to expand their knowledge.

Related posts:

• "Muslim Family Talks Safety, Gets Booted From Flight"
  (January 2, 2009)
• "Monkey Pirates, Jews, and Zionists? Get a Grip!"
  (October 14, 2008)
• "Pro-Islamic Ads Coming to New York City Subways: There's a Real Danger Here, of Becoming Informed"
  (July 21, 2008)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008) Particularly
  • Individual Freedom: a Treasure
  • Knowledge is Power: and I Like Power
• "Civil Rights Lynched in Seattle!! Racial Profiling Runs Amok!!"
  (May 6, 2008)
• "TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work: Protecting the Flying Public from Nipple Rings"
  (March 27, 2008)
• " 'They’re all Muslims' - This Does Not Help"
  (December 29, 2007)
• "If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!"
  (September 1, 2007)
• "Beware Hate: From Any Side"
  (August 28, 2007)

In the news:

• "TSA Defends Holding Student With Arabic Flash Cards at Philadelphia Airport"
  FOXNews (September 12, 2009)
• "Dave Davies: Student air passenger handcuffed to echoes of 9/11 fears"
  (September 11, 2009)

About Somali Monkeys, Mohammed's Mother, and Other Strange Comments

Comments on this blog get a bit out of hand sometimes. Recently, it was "Somali Buccaneer monkeys," and now someone opining that the Blessed Prophet is in "the Hell."

گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران Was Posting from: Iran?!

The same comment was left on two recent posts, by گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران :

• "So, Sarah Palin is Good-Looking: So What?"
  (October 15, 2008)
  comment posted October 16, 2008
• "ACORN and Voter Fraud: Good Help is So Hard to Find"
  (October 15, 2008)
  comment posted October 16, 2008

The comment has extremely tenuous relevance to the Sarah Palin/Doonsbury/action figure post, and none that I can detect to the ACORN post.

I ran that (name?) گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران through an Arabic-English translator, and came up with "گایا - the heart of تاریکی Party Sabz, Iran."

Which is a little odd, since the message claims to have originated in Iran, where Persian is the dominant language. I'd have expected an attempt to translate Persian with an Arabic template to come out as gibberish.

Even more oddness: the TextCat Language Guesser Demo identified it as Turkish.

Whatever language گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران uses, گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران has left comments before. Rambling, somewhat incoherent comments: and those were the parts I could read.

This is Important: I do Not Necessarily Agree With Comments on This Blog

Last month, someone referred to pirates who were holding that ship with the Ukranian/Russian tanks as "Somali Buccaneer monkeys." ("Somali Pirates, Barbary Pirates, Ransom, and the War on Terror" (September 28, 2008), comment left October 11, 2008)

I don't approve of what the pirates are doing, but I wouldn't use a racial slur like that, either.

Today, I find two identical comments, in a wide variety of languages. The English part says:

"Iranian young people shout to all world peoples: Islam is a Satanic religion.We understand, 'Mohammed messenger of Allah' has created a satanic religion and he has created a savagery culture .his mother was prostitute, and his girl was prostitute. Now 'Mohammed messenger of Allah' is in the Hell."

I'm letting these comments stay, for now at least, but I do not agree with them. I'm a devout Catholic, and so am specifically ordered to not judge other people (Catechism, 1861). As for those colorful details of the Prophet's life, I'd appreciate reading a legitimate Islamic view on that topic.

Whoever posted this "...is in the Hell" comment closed with:

"this is posted from Iran

"greengaya.blogspot.com
zahra-zeynab.blogspot.com"

I know enough about spoofing to know that the post could have come from anywhere.

I Could Use Some Help Here

• If you recognize the language that گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران uses as a name, let me know - with a source that will allow me, and readers, to verify your statement
• Have you received comments like this on your blog? If so, please leave a comment on this post

Why Go to This Trouble?

There are three comments from گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران now. The earlier one was on "Honor Killing is Against Islam, Islamic Party Members Say" (September 7, 2008) post.

I can't know why گایا - حزب سبز لبه تاریکی ایران posts these messages, but I can guess. There are quite a few possibilities.

• A kid with way too much free time may be 'having fun' with current events
• Someone whose beliefs fit the liberal's view of rednecks may think that this is a way of discrediting Islam
• A Lion of Islam may think that this is a way of showing how despicable and blasphemous blogs like this are
  • It's not as crazy as it sounds: the idea might be to 'show' what sort of blaspheming unbelievers read such blogs
• Iran's equivalent of Sixties campus radicals may be 'educating' the world, using this blog (and, I suspect, others) as a platform

Or, the explanation could be something completely different.

Ersatz Army Corporal Jesse Adam MacBeth's Tale Lives On

Whether the ersatz Army Corporal Jesse Adam MacBeth meant to or not, he's handed the people who want to make the U.S. military, and America in general, as a horrific threat a wonderful bit of propaganda.

I mentioned MacBeth/Al-Zaid's video interview in an earlier post. His bogus claim that he participated in the murder of hundreds of helpless civilians - and burning them - and hanging their bodies in a mosque - has been translated into Arabic and sent 'round the world on the Internet.

Apparently, the translation isn't just a dry transcript. The video was translated: whether dubbed, or with captions, I don't know.

American anti-war groups took down their celebrations of "Army Corporal Jesse Adam MacBeth" and his American atrocities when MacBeth/Al-Zaid's status became obvious. And, when the atrocities turned out to be as real as his status as a Ranger.

I don't blame them: accurate information about MacBeth/Al-Zaid is now easily available in the English-reading world, and particularly in America.

I'd guess that MacBeth/Al-Zaid's atrocity tale will have a much longer life in the Middle East.

Again, in fairness, MacBeth/Al-Zaid has said that he's sorry. "I'm sorry not only for lying about everything and discrediting anti-war groups, but also for defaming the real heroes, the soldiers out there sacrificing for their country," he said. "I was trying to pull a fast one, to make money to get off the streets."

Too bad that he provided fanatic Muslims with a wonderful piece of propaganda.

Finally, one detail that would have made me question his story without any other evidence. MacBeth/Al-Zaid has been widely quoted as saying, ""We would burn their bodies ... hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." That ellipsis may have contained an explanation for a minor mystery.

I've lived in agricultural areas for much of my life: and my understanding is that burned carcasses fall apart easily.

How could someone hang burned bodies from rafters, or anything else?

Usama, Osama, Tomayto, Tomahto

If you're really on the ball, you've noticed a few changes in "Another War-on-Terror Blog."

Up until this morning, I referred to the leader of Al Qaeda as "Usama Bin Laden." Yesterday, I read a comment which said out that "Osama" was the correct spelling.

Actually, it seems that أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن (Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden) is the correct spelling of his full name, and that أسامة بن لادن (Osama bin Laden) is a shortened form.

Since many readers might have trouble reading أسامة بن لادن, I decided to use a Latinized form of the name. When I started tracking Sheik bin Laden, I ran into "Usama" more often than "Osama," and so I standardized on that form of the name.

I see now that "Osama bin Laden" is used more often than "Usama bin Laden," by a ratio of 2,870,000 - 536,000. So, "Osama" it is. I spent part of this morning making the changes, and believe that I caught all instances.

This is a good example of how interesting it is, as an American, dealing with people and issues for which many names and terms are written in an alphabet other than those derived from the Latin writing system.

Thanks for the feedback!

Celebrate Today, or You're a Bigot!

This does not help.

"Participate in Muslim Day Parade in NYC" "Apparently some bigots are continuing on this dehumanization campaign trying to imply that this event is violent. In reality it is a day of family fun, games, contests, and lectures."

What monster could be against something so wholesome?

The next paragraph tells more about this upcoming celebration of diversity and tolerance.

"The New York chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-NY) today called upon Muslims and all New Yorkers who support diversity, tolerance, and harmony to participate in the 22nd United American Muslim Day Parade scheduled for Sunday, September 9th. The parade aims to bring together various ethnic and religious communities in promoting a better understanding of Islam and fostering interfaith cooperation despite misleading campaigns against it on Islamophobic websites."

The paragraph appears to be quoted from a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) news release - except for The last phrase, "despite misleading campaigns against it on Islamophobic websites." So far, I can only find that phrase on the "Jihad of Umar" page.

[UPDATE, October 1, 2007 - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been revised since this post: the above link now is redirected to the CAIR home page.]

One of the "Islamophobic" websites seems to be "Muslim-American Day Parade in NYC Celebrates 9/11 / UPDATE: Attend Muslim Day Parade Counter Rallies Sept.9, 2007 NYC." This is the most hate-filled, Islamphobic, bigoted statement I could find on the page:

"So why is this parade being held on September 9?

"I, for one, am not about to stand together with those who subscribe to an expansionist, totalitarian, enemy ideology that is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and with the survival of our way of life. And if Bloomberg had any sense, neither would he!"

Apparently, the website is Bloombergophobic, too.

Compare this to the open-minded and tolerant CAIR statement:

"'The rhetorical attacks on the parade are clearly an attempt to demonize and marginalize the American Muslim community,' said CAIR-NY President Omar Mohammedi, Esq. 'Our city prides itself on its diversity. Such bigoted attacks should not be tolerated.'"

As a Dilbert character said, several years ago, about "diversity:" 'de more you have, di verse it gets.' (I've enjoyed living in places where people whose ancestors came from different places, who had different beliefs, and whose home language wasn't necessarily English: but that obviously isn't what "diversity" means, these days.)

Back to the parade.

I understand that CAIR and company had been holding their parade and social bash for several years, before their fellow-Muslims ran two airliners into the New York Trade Center's Twin Towers.

I suppose it is bigoted, in the current sense of the word, to not feel good about CAIR and the merry Muslims carrying on with the parade, despite the thousands of people who were burned, crushed, or sprayed over New York City as Muslims brought down the World Trade Center.

Of course, if crazed Christians had killed thousands of people, and a Christian group carried on with a 'tolerate us!' parade timed to go off two days from the outrage's anniversary, that would be an entirely different matter.

Posts on this general topic:

• Celebrate Today, or You're a Bigot!
  (September 9, 2007)
• If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP
  (September 1, 2007)
• Beware Hate: From Any Side
  (August 28, 2007)
• Special Consideration Doesn't Help
  (August 27, 2007)
• Jihad Rehab
  (August 22, 2007)
• Muslims Are Not All Alike
  (August 19, 2007)
• More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us"
  (August 9, 2007)
• Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten
  (August 9, 2007)
• Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News
  (August 7, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks
  (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota
  (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate
  (July 16, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2
  (July 15, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion"
  (July 6, 2007)

More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report

First, I've got some philosophizing to get out of my system.

"Ownership or participation in ownership of a publication or broadcasting property is a sacred trust and a great privilege." ("The Standards of Ownership / Nelson Poynter's guide for the ownership of the St. Petersburg Times," August 6, 1947)

I wish that journalism lived up to such high ideals. Then, statements like, "it must be true: it's in the news," wouldn't be so grimly funny.

Even the most believable, perhaps especially the most believable, news reports should be viewed with deferred judgment.

For example: "Everybody knows" how wild and crazy rock bands are, so there's no reason to question news reports from 1981, which stated that Van Halen did thousands of dollars of damage to a New Mexico venue, just because they were given brown M&Ms, and their contract demanded a bowl of M&Ms with the brown ones removed.

According to an autobiography by one of the band members, the brown M&M restriction was there to make sure that promoters of Van Halen concerts actually read the contract. No brown M&Ms meant that a full system check of the facilities was necessary. A place in Colorado had tens of thousands of dollars of damage, because the floor wasn't strong enough to support the V.H. stage equipment.

Now, About the "The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq," that I call the General Jones report.

I had a little trouble with the report by General Jones. CBS News didn't name it, but gave this description: "The study, conducted by a 20-member panel led by retired Gen. James Jones, is one of several independent studies Congress directed in May. A copy of the 37-page report was obtained by The Associated Press."

I found a report which was

• Conducted by a 20-member panel
• Chaired by General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.)
• Directed by Public Law 110-28, enacted May 27, 2007

It didn't have 37 pages, though. The report I found was 153 pages long, including the cover sheet.

Maybe the report "obtained by The Associated Press" was some sort of special summary. It wasn't the "Executive Summary" in the report: that wasn't anywhere near 37 pages long.

Maybe retired General Jones was working with another 20-person panel, on a nearly identical project.

That's not likely.

My working assumption is that the "37-page" part of the CBS News report is one of those little slips that happen now and again, like the Van Halen M&Ms.

As with the GAO report, the report shows that Iraq has problems. Lots of problems.

My original plan, when I thought I'd have 37 pages to deal with, was to look over the whole report, and discuss it.

153 pages is too much for that: I don't have the time, and I doubt that you'd want to sit still, reading what I think about it.

So, after a quick skim, I picked one topic: Corruption.

On page 123, I found "Corruption" as a heading. "Corruption is a serious problem at many land prots of entry. This fact has not yet been adequately addressed," the report said.

Reading on, I think "not yet been adequately addressed" was an understatement. The problem is that the central Iraqi government can't collect tariffs, stop contraband, or expect their Department of Border Enforcement to work properly.

One of the issues seems to be that several Iraqi ministries bump into each other at land ports of entry: and try to out-maneuver each other for a piece of the action.

Then, there's the matter of kickbacks. The Ministry of Interior (MOI) isn't always as helpful as it should be, to put it mildly.

Iraqi and Coalition officials told members of the Commission that "personnel at the border crossings are often discouraged from doing their jobs 'too well,' lest they disrupt lucrative smuggling operations that benefit senior-level officers in the MOI."

To its credit, the Iraqi government has tried to fix the problem, even changing leadership in some areas.

One way of looking at corruption in Iraq is to decide that it's a cultural norm, something which Americans must accept as part of the rich heritage of the region: one mustn't be ethnocentric!

I don't buy that. Although parts of the Middle East have earned a reputation for corruption, they have quite a bit of competition for most-corrupt-country, globally.

A list of Transparency International's CPI, or Corruption Perception Index, is at Rediff.com.

According to the CPI, Finland is the least-corrupt country that was studied, with a score of 9.7 (out of 10). Bangladesh the most corrupt, with a score of 1.3.

Countries more-or-less in the Middle East had a pretty wide range of scores. This list is a sampling, I may have missed some:

• Israel 7.0
  
• Oman 6.3
• Bahrain 6.1
• Kuwait 5.3
• United Arab Emirates 5.2
• Jordan 4.6
• Saudi Arabia 4.5
• Syria 3.4
• Egypt 3.3
• Turkey 3.1
• Iran 3.0
• Lebanon 3.0
• Palestine 3.0
• Yemen 2.6
• Pakistan 2.5
• Kazakhstan 2.4
• Uzbekistan 2.4
• Iraq 2.2
• Kyrgyzstan 2.1
• Azerbaijan 1.8
• Tajikistan 1.8

(Syria is near the mid-point of the list, a score shared by China, Panama, and Sri Lanka.)

I said before that Iraq has many problems. That doesn't mean that I want to see America, and the other coalition countries which are still involved in Iraq, say, "good luck," and pull out before the wild collection of

• Decent, patriotic Iraqis
• Crazed religious fanatics
• My-tribe-first fossils who didn't notice the rise of nation-states
• The usual bunch of big-shot wannabes

...have a chance to thrash out a reasonable facsimile of a funcional national government.

I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating. It was 11 years before the American colonies dropped what hadn't been working, and developed the Constitution that America has now. These things take time.

Posts on this topic:

• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, Where to Find Reports
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports of Iraq: Day 1
  (September 7, 2007: about 1:00am)

More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report

The Government Accountability Office report, GAO-07-1195, is an update of an a sort of work-in-progress draft released in July, 2007.

I appreciated the table that the new GAO report put, on the third sheet. It's easier to see the overall pattern of the report that way.

The picture isn't rosy, by any means. I've copied the 18 "Benchmarks," and whether they were met or not (according to the GAO), with a GAO comment following. My comments on each are in parentheses.

1. Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and completing the constitutional review.

Not Met

Committee formed but amendments not approved by the Iraqi legislature and no referendum scheduled.

(They haven't thrashed out how much power the president will have, for one thing. I'm not surprised. That's something that's still being debated in Washington.)

2. Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba'athification.

Not Met (not quite)

(Laws drafted. Iraqi Shi'a, and Sunni Arab, and Kurdish, leaders are still working on what to do. Better this, than a quickie get-the-Ba'athists, or amneesty-for-all "solution.")

3. Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner

Not Met (not quite)

3 of 4 components drafted; none being considered by parliament.

(This one is really complicated: four interrelated points, over a high-value economic prize, involving groups that haven't gotten along very well for the last thirty years, at least.)

4. Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

Partly Met

Law enacted; implementation scheduled for 2008.

(That's less than 4 months away: And the delay in enactment was built into the law.)

5. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

Partly Met

Commission law enacted and implemented; however, supporting laws not enacted.

(Not bad, nder the circumstances.)

6. Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

Not Met

No law drafted.

("No progress" may not be a bad thing here. We're talking about amnesty for the equivalent of Nazi war criminals here, without the heavy-handed bunch of victors with righteous indignation that facilitated the Nuremburg trials.)

7. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

Not Met

No law drafted.

(This is one that I regard as a real problem: You can't run a country, with war bands running around, killing people they don't approve of.)

8. Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan.

Met

Committees established.

(Now, let's hope the committees do something besides have meetings.)

9. Providing three trained and ready brigades to support Baghdad operations.

Partly Met

Forces provided; some of limited effectiveness.

(It could be worse. Of 19 Iraqi units supporting operations in Baghdad; 5 units had performed well; 14, not so much.)

10. Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S. commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

Not Met

Political intervention continues.

(Isn't that what politicians do? I've gotten the impression that part of the job of politicos is to second-guess military leaders.)

11. Ensuring that Iraqi security forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.

Not Met

Iraqi security forces engaged in sectarian-based abuses.

(This is very serious. "In May 2007, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that Iraq's Shi'a-dominated government bears responsibility for engaging in sectarian-based human
rights violations, as well as tolerating abuses committed by Shi'a militias with ties to political factions in the governing coalition." (page 44))

12. Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said “the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

Partly Met

Militia infiltration of some security forces enables some safe havens.

(There's actually something of a breakthrough here. Sadr City is no longer protected by the Iraqi government from law enforcement and military action.)

13. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

Not Met

Militias control some local security; unclear whether sectarian violence has decreased.

(The report seems to treat this as a subheading of Benchmark 7.)

14. Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

Met

32 of 34 stations established.

(Looking back at the report's rating of point 5, shouldn't this be a "1"? Only 94% of the security stations are in place! Seriously, this is pretty good work.)

15. Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

Not Met

Number of independent units declined between March and July 2007.

(This is not good, but the problem seems to be a matter of finding ways to find supplies, and get them to the units. I should think this would be easier to solve than the problem of getting people to stop killing each other over tribal rivalries and religious details.)

16. Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

Met

Legislators' rights protected; minority citizens' rights unprotected.

(This is limited good news.)

17. Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Partly Met

Funds allocated but unlikely to be fully spent.

(A government not spending money as a problem: that's an idea that takes getting used to.)

18. Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi security forces.

Not Met

Unsubstantiated accusations continue to be made.

(Fair enough. False accusations by someone in power is trouble, as the Duke Lacrosse situation showed.)

Okay, that was the GAO report.

I'd have liked to see more of those benchmarks met. On the other hand, and with due respect to the members of Congress, I wonder how well the House and Senate would score, if they an outside agency started looking at their performance?

The GAO report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf. I'd strongly recommend getting a copy, and comparing what politicos and experts will be saying it says, to what it actually says.

I'm afraid that even the best minds are subject to wishful thinking.

Posts on this topic:

• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, Where to Find Reports
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports of Iraq: Day 1
  (September 7, 2007: about 1:00am)

Just What's Going On With "Jihad Watch?" Censorship?

This is getting interesting.

About censorship: "Jihad Watch banned again" (September 4, 2007).

Taking a look around Jihad Watch, I think I'm beginning to understand the problem. Jihad Watch doesn't approve of Islam, and therefore is a hate group. At least, by the standards of some segments of American society.

Jihad Watch's post, "Iraq: Misunderstanders of Islam continue with creation of "Islamic Cabinet"" (September 4, 2007), makes it very clear that they do not agree with the mainstream view that Islam has been hijacked by terrorists.

Jihad Watch rejects the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the jihadists are the Islamic equivalent of one of, say, the KKK with its cross-burnings.

For those without a knowledge of American culture in the 20th century, the KKK said they were Christians who were protecting their faith (and racial purity). Quite a few Christians, particularly Catholics, didn't agree: at all.

Back to Jihad Watch: I doubt that their identification of all Islam with the jihadist faction is accurate; but so far, there's been a remarkable lack of fuss raised by Muslims, regarding what is supposed to be a hijacking of their faith.

The matter certainly can be debated, and I am very concerned that a point of view is being banned.

I will admit that I have a personal stake in this. I express views in this blog that probably do not meet with the approval of

• The likes of Jihad Watch
  ("If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!")
• Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud
  ("Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten")
• Keith Ellison
  ("Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks")

One way or another, somebody's going to get around to wanting me banned from the blogosphere, because I have an unapproved viewpoint.

I lived with political correctness in academia. I'd rather not see the same sort of censorship become common in the blogosphere.

If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!

The good news is that news media doesn't seem to have gotten excited about the six men who were speaking Arabic, and the woman with concerns about her children.

The bad news is that a planeful of passengers had to stay in San Diego overnight.

Judging from what's in the news, American Airlines Flight 590 was carrying six guys who had been training Iraq-bound Marines. A woman with her two kids was also on the plane.

She apparently heard them speaking Arabic, and reported her concerns to airport security. The security officers told her that they weren't suspicious, and let them board. After hearing them "clunking around" in the airplane's restroom, the woman and her kids left the plane.

The International Herald reports that "Airline spokesman Tim Wagner said earlier this week only that the 'incident' that began in the departure lounge had been ongoing and the flight crew felt it needed to be resolved on the ground."

Between airport security and local law enforcement, the snafu was resolved. But by that time the airport's outgoing-flight services were shut down.

What had started as a red eye flight became an overnight stay for the passengers and crew of Flight 590.

The woman with the kids said, "I do feel very bad but I was just protecting my tiny little family," to The San Diego Union-Tribune on Friday. "All I could think of was 9/11."

Understandable.

One of six "Iraqis" questioned is David Al Watan, 30, of Dearborn, Michigan. He says he's embarrassed, and had no idea there was a problem until the plane returned to the to the terminal. "Everyone who didn't look like us went off and did whatever they wanted," said Al Watan, who apparently fled Iraq in 1991 and is now a U.S. citizen. He says he loves his adopted country. "I would die for it," he told a newspaper.

The group now has a lawyer, who says they want an apology from the airline.

Also understandable.

"They can't just assume someone has a bomb strapped to them just because they are Arabic," the group's attorney said.

Sounds reasonable to me.

This foul-up was discussed on FreeRepublic.com. the Free Republic post was reasonable enough. Some of the comments were, in my opinion, not:

• "After 9/11, who doesn't know that Americans have a problem with sharing a plane flight with a group of Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern types. Prejudice? You bet, but in deference to our national painful memories, they should have shown far more tact if they were Iraqis Americans."
• "sounds like cair fear.
  
  "one passenger reported an issue so they removed that passenger and then when they left they had a unrelated mechanical issue."
  (I have not found reference to a "mechanical issue" in published reports. The poster may be referring to remarks by Irene McCormack, a spokeswoman for the San Diego Harbor Police, who said that planes returning to the gate is unusual, and that returns are usually for medical or mechanical problems, or a disturbance. (cbs2chicago.com))
• "Iraqi Americans?
  The subtle injection of race-by association by the reporter seems to have escaped everyone.
  "What the hell is an Iraqi-American? If they are muslims, that is a useless meaningless phrase.
  
  "They were muslims being their usual stupid, arrogant, self-important selves."

Free Republic wasn't the only place where people were upset. "It is one thing to flag suspicious behavior, but to flag a global language? We are deplaning people for who they are, not what they do," said Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Chicago.

I can understand Mr. Rehab's position. His job is to raise and maintain awareness of unfair treatment of Muslims in America, real or apparent.

It's harder to wrap my mind around "muslims being their usual stupid, arrogant, self-important selves." However, this crude statement illustrates something that Muslim apologists should pay attention to. From Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to the Flying Imams, enough Muslims have 'just happened' to be offensive for unsophisticated infidels to assume that all Muslims are self-righteous prigs. It's not true, of course.

The unpleasant reality is that Muslim fanatics are trying to destroy American culture and institutions: and any Americans who are not sufficiently Islamic, or who simply get in the way.

Some Americans find it difficult to be tolerant toward these activities and beliefs.

Rational self-preservation is a correct response to the threat of the Jihad against the west.

Overly-broad, ignorant generalizations about all Muslims, or everyone who speaks Arabic, is foolish.

Implied claims of racism aren't the most sensible thing to do, either. Unless the intent is to whip up even-stronger anti-Muslim/anti-Arab statements and acts: which in turn could be used as support of the initial claims of bias.

Bottom line: With the exception of a few people who support al Qaeda or similar jihadist organizations, everyone in a country which is either non-Islamic, or insufficiently Islamic, is in danger.

Rational steps need to be taken to deal with that danger.

But, being suspicious of everyone who looks Middle Eastern and/or speaks Arabic is not rational.

Information and quotes for this post are from:
Breitbart.com
International Herald Tribune
FreeRepublic.com
cbs2chicago.com

Posts on this general topic:

• If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP
  (September 1, 2007)
• Beware Hate: From Any Side
  (August 28, 2007)
• Special Consideration Doesn't Help
  (August 27, 2007)
• Jihad Rehab
  (August 22, 2007)
• Muslims Are Not All Alike
  (August 19, 2007)
• More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us"
  (August 9, 2007)
• Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten
  (August 9, 2007)
• Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News
  (August 7, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks
  (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota
  (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate
  (July 16, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion" 2
  (July 15, 2007)
• "Islam is a Peaceful Religion"
  (July 6, 2007)

Six Iraqis, Arabic, and Someone with Two Kids in Tow

Details are still sketchy, but what I saw in "Airplane Passenger Dispute Involving Six Iraqis Forces Jet Evacuation in California" (August 30, 2007) looks like an American Airlines flight from San Diego to Chicago got delayed because some passengers got into an argument.

This incident made national news because six of the people involved are Iraqis, and were speaking Arabic.

American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner said that the argument started between someone traveling with two children and six men from Iraq. The Iraqis were in America, training Marines who were on their way to Iraq.

My sympathies are with the passenger with two kids in tow. I've traveled with one of our kids: one of the best-behaved ones, at that, and that was stressful enough.

My sympathies are also with the six Iraqis. It sounds like they've been working hard, and didn't need this sort of incident, either.

Before identifying this as 'racial profiling' or something else along those lines, I'm going to wait until a little more information comes out.

Meanwhile, let's remember that there were about two hundred air rage incidents over America during the late 1990s, and almost 250 last year. Some of those fracases resulted in flights being diverted from their destination.

"Peace For Our Time," or Peace?

The unclassified part of the National Intelligence Estimate released today is coming out in bits and pieces in the news.

The Jerusalem Post concentrated mostly on what the report had to say about Iran, in "US reports bleak political situation in Iran" (August 23, 2007).

The Associated Press article says that:

• Iran will keep developing its nuclear program, which may or may not be producing nuclear weapons
• Iran will continue to "cause problems" in Iraq
• Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, will still be backed by Iranian money and weapons
• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will continue to be Iran's Supreme Leader

I haven't been keeping score, but at least four Iranian-Americans have been arrested by Iran for alleged espionage. The U.S. government has warned American citizens against traveling in Iran.

"Intelligence Assessment Suggests Now Is Not Time to Change Mission in Iraq," on FoxNews.com, paid more attention to what the report had to say about Iraq.

It's not all bad news, but it's not all good, either:

• Iraqi military forces are okay, but they still need coalition support for major operations
• Political and security troubles in Iraq are driven by
• Shia insecurity about keeping the political power they have
• A general Sunni unwillingness to accept the post-Saddam Iraq where they aren't the top power
• Fighting between groups within sectarian communities
• Extremists trying to make the fighting worse
• Civilians are still getting hurt
• Sunni Arab groups and individuals are getting fed up with al Qaeda in Iraq, and are resisting or working against AQI

There's more, of course. Fox News put a .pdf copy of the report online.

The report's authors say that stopping Coalition forces from focusing on fighting terrorists and stabilizing Iraq, and making them a combat support service for the Iraqi forces, "would erode security gains achieved thus far."

I would love to have "peace for our time." The violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else that al Qaeda and other Islamic fanatics are at work, is terrible. I wish that it would stop.

But wishing doesn't make it so.

Like it or not, there are people who earnestly believe that their god is telling them to conduct a jihad against the people their leaders don't approve of.

And, it's been going on for at least 30 years. The Ayatollahs who run Iran are the same bunch that took over the U.S. Embassy, back in the seventies.

There's no reason to believe that Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, or any of the other people who think they're on a sacred mission, will stop because America and other coalition troops stop trying so hard in Iraq.

"We make war that we may live in peace."

To people who grew up in the sixties, or who are still living then, that sounds crazy. But Aristotle was no lunatic, and leaders who don't let terrorists do what they will may not be, either.

---

The Names of Abu Sayyaf: Thinking About Translations

Terrible as it is, the efforts of religious fanatics to convert or kill the rest of the world has been an opportunity for me to learn a little about the Arabic language.

Researching a recent post, I found items about Arabic and Abu Sayyaf that didn't quite relate to the post's topic, but were too interesting to file and forget.

Abu Sayyaf has quite a few names. "Abu Sayyaf," "Jamāʿah Abū Sayyāf," (جماعة أبو سياف written in the Roman alphabet), and "al-Harakat al-Islamiyah." The Wikipedia article says that the name comes from Arabic ابو, abu ("father of") and sayyaf ("Swordsmith").

As usual, translations of the name don't agree. "bearer of the sword" or "Sword of God" or literally "Father of the Sword" in Arabic.

Council on Foreign Relations, renown experts since the Wilson administration, says this about them, "Abu Sayyaf (the phrase means 'bearer of the sword' in Arabic) is a militant organization based in the southern Philippines seeking a separate Islamic state for the country's Muslim minority."

So what? I'm directing the next remarks mostly at American citizens, but the principles apply to many other people.

Unless you read, and speak, Arabic and other languages, you're getting your information about affairs in the Islamic world through a medium that translates statements. And translation involves choosing which word or phrase to use, of many possibilities.

I don't advocate not believing what you read. I do suggest that you think about what can happen in translations as you read.

Related posts:

• The Names of Abu Sayyaf: Thinking About Translations (August 19, 2007)
• "Quagmire," the Revolutionary Guard, and the News (August 19, 2007)
• News, Truth, and the Big Picture (August 11, 2007)
• Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up! (August 9, 2007)

New York City Counterterrorism Report: Profiling, Stereotyping, or Common Sense

The New York City (NYC) Police Department report on terrorism, mentioned in a Washington Post article yesterday (August 16, 2007), is the sort of long, detailed, official document that generally doesn't make the news. In fact, the paper only said enough about the report to give readers a general impression of its contents:

"The 90-page report, compiled by two police counterterrorism analysts, argues that the danger posed by homegrown radical Islamists is growing, fueled by Internet communications and the growing global popularity of jihadist ideology.

"But the report also concedes that "there is no useful profile . . . to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization" because those who end up being radicalized begin as 'unremarkable' individuals 'from various walks of life.'

"...The report by analysts Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt outlines a four-step process, from 'pre-radicalization' to 'jihadization,' that it says is undergone by most terrorists before participating in an attack. The transformation is often triggered by a personal crisis and includes common elements, such as a withdrawal from attending a mosque as the person's isolation increases, the report says."

I found more about the Silber-Bhatt report in the New York Post - "THE ROAD TO LOCAL JIHAD" (August 16, 2007). "Excerpted from "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat," a report prepared by senior NYPD intelligence analysts Mitchell D. Silber and Arvin Bhatt for Police Commissioner Ray Kelly." There's quite a bit more about the report here.

Briefly:

The Silber-Bhatt report identifies four stages on the road to "jihadization," or being a terrorist. I'm going to boil it down even more: I suggest that you read the article, since I'm leaving out quite a bit of detail.

1. Pre-Radicalization
2. Self-Identification
3. Indoctrination
4. Jihadization

Expanding on that list,

1. Pre-Radicalization: This is when the terrorist-to-be is an ordinary, run-of-the-mill person, with an ordinary life and job. There's usually no criminal history.
2. Self-Identification: The person starts moving toward Salafi Islam (1), and away from their old identity. They start associating themselves with people with the same mind-set, and adopt this ideology as their own. What sets this "religious seeking" off is is a cognitive opening, or crisis, which shakes the person's certainty about what they believed before. The person is open to new world-views.
   The trigger can be: losing a job; alienation, discrimination, or racism (real or imagined, as long as the person feels it); political, like "international conflicts involving Muslims" (my own guess is that politics on the regional or local level could be a trigger, too); death in the family, or another personal crisis. Self-identification is basically an individual act. However, being part of a group with similar beliefs is important, especially as the next step gets closer.
3. Indoctrination: The person "progressively intensifies his (2) beliefs," swallows jihadi-Salafi, ideology and an all, and concludes, no questions asked, that it's time for action. Specifically, militant jihad. The person is helped (and pushed) through this phase by a "spiritual sanctioner." Being with people who are in a similar frame of mind, and with similar beliefs, gets more important: particularly as the person sinks deeper into the group's beliefs. "By the indoctrination phase this self-selecting group becomes increasingly important as radical views are encouraged and reinforced."
4. Jihadization: This is where members of the little band accept being part of jihad as their individual duty. They call themselves as holy warriors, or mujahedeen. Sooner or later, they get practical and get into "acts in furtherance." These acts include planning, preparation and execution: of people; or the plans; or both. The earlier parts of getting radical can be gradual, covering two or three years or more. Jihadization can happen fast, anywhere from a few months to a few weeks.

A Washington Post article mentioned that this process "includes common elements, such as a withdrawal from attending a mosque as the person's isolation increases." Although dropping out of a mosque is a common part of the jihadization process, the report includes mosques, as well as cafes, cabdriver hangouts, prisons, student associations, nongovernmental organizations and hookah bars, in its list of places where radicals can be hatched.

The Washington Post's "Terror Threat Grows Quietly, Report Warns" article wraps up its description of the NYC Police report with a quote, "'The subtle and non-criminal nature of the behaviors involved in the process of radicalization makes it difficult to identify or even monitor from a law enforcement standpoint,' the report concludes."

That's the report. Here are some reactions to it.

"Making all Muslims suspects is ethnic profiling, and it's unconstitutional," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. (from the Washington Post) (NYCLU is the (New York State affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union)

"So while labeling almost every American Muslim as a potential terrorist, the report's authors admit that their findings offer no useful way to identify real terror suspects." (from a Council of Council on American-Islamic Relations press release, "CAIR: NYPD Terror Report Casts Suspicion on All U.S. Muslims," August 15, 2007)

The NYPD report was "unfortunate stereotyping" and at odds with federal law enforcement findings that the threat from homegrown terrorists was minimal, according to an Arab-American civil rights group.. "It [the report] is completely un-American; it goes against everything we stand for," said Kareem Shora, executive director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "We do not want to alienate any segment of any community, and by using that language you are actually aiding the extremists in their recruiting efforts."

Under the circumstances, I'd say the reaction to this report is fairly mild. Two days after the excitement started, news coverage I've seen has been subdued or non-existent.

It's early days, though.

Major players in the civil-rights game, like CAIR and the ACLU, through its New York State affiliate, as well as relatively unknown groups like the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee started with the predictable accusations of profiling, and stereotyping.

My guess is that, if New York City law enforcement starts acting on this report, there will be more-or-less wild accusations of civil rights violations, profiling, and, of course, racism.

What got relatively little attention in coverage of the NYC Police report was that Muslims in America haven't gotten radicalized the way that Muslims in Europe have. I think that this reflects something that the civil-rights community in general has a great deal of difficulty understanding about this country.

Every identifiable group of immigrants have been viewed by suspicion by some, and occasionally subjected to discrimination (real discrimination: not I-was-arrested because-I'm-Yougarian thing (3)) on an official level, in America. Just the same, this country is much more comfortable about having one more ethnic group living here than European countries seem to be.

I think it's because by now we're accustomed to having corned beef and cabbage, enchiladas, potato curry, and stir-fried bean curd on menus downtown, and the people who eat these dishes at home, living within a few blocks.

Footnotes:

(1) Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam. Adherents more often refer to teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab as Salafi, that is, "following the forefathers of Islam." "Wahhabi" is a common term for the same group, although Salafi Muslims do not generally use it. People who belong to this type of Islam call themselves Muwahhidun (that is, "Unitarians," or "unifiers of Islamic practice"). Wahhabism is one a particular set of beliefs within Salafism. Most Islamic "puritanical" groups are Salafi, but not necessarily Wahhabi.
(2) Although I found no news report which mentioned this gaffe, the NYC Police report seems to be sexist, too. At least, by PC standards.
(3) Yougarian: Of or relating to Yougaria, a fictional country of uncertain location. I use it sometimes, as a generic term: mostly because it's somewhat more adaptable, and much cooler, than "foreigner."

UAE, Censorship, Shari'a Law, Freedom: So What?

I learned something about the United Arab Emirates (UAE) today.

An online discussion brought my attention to the UAE, in a roundabout way. A blogger, who apparently lives in the United States, but needs internet connections for the blog, started the discussion with these words:

"anybody noticed today that blogger is down its down for one day and im still waiting any body having the same problem."

Later, after establishing that "blogger" was usable from a couple points in America, Sweden, and the Sultanate of Oman, the blogger wrote this:

"its not opening the website in uae"

Later:

"maybey etisalat blocked it"

Still later, the blogger seemed to have found the problem. "ok guys i knew the probem its all about our damn intenet service provider their name is etisalat they are blocking all the damn websites i dont what the hell is wrong with them my brother computer has a kind of software that can bypass any website but this software does not work in my computer so i asked my brother if i coud use his computer daiy so he said yes i will try to emai this damn etisaat because bogger website has nothing illegal."

I took a look at the website, "Make Money Online with a 12-Year Old Kid." Aside from the rather bright color scheme, I could find nothing objectionable. "Get into the world of making money online with a 12 years old kid that will teach you the best seo tutorials for optimizing your blog or website," is how the blogger describes the site.

Etisalat is the UAE's government-owned Internet provider. Their website shows a professional, family-friendly set of services.

Checking around, I found a GulfNews.com article, "Don't let your child roam the internet aimlessly" (July 27, 2007), quoting a parent with pre-teen children. "At the moment, the Internet connection we have is the Etisalat one and there are processes in place to stop some sites. They filter all the pornographic sites and the sites that could be harmful to children. I have peace of mind here [in the UAE]. In my home country we don't have this filter."

Sounds very nice. I'm the father of four, and I'm concerned about what my children are exposed to, too.

It's been four hours, so far, since that online discussion started. The blogger still doesn't seem able to get past Etilsalat.

Maybe they've got technical difficulties. It happens.

A little more checking about the UAE showed that it's a small country on the Persian Gulf, relatively wealthy, with a president, and what looks like a good, constitutionally-guaranteed set of human rights. The UAE even has a "moderate foreign policy."

Then, there's what the U.S. Department of State wrote about the UAE, regarding their 2006 human rights behavior.

"Authorities do not commonly screen private correspondence; however, there have been reports of censorship of incoming international mail. The government-owned Internet provider, Etisalat, regularly blocks internet sites that censors determine to be "objectionable" (see section 2.c.)."

"Make Money Online with a 12-Year Old Kid" hardly seems "objectionable," unless a 12-year-old talking about search engine optimization and making money is wrong. Of course, there is that rather loud black-and-yellow design.

More excerpts from the same U.S. State Department page about UAE's human rights practices in 2006:

"The constitution prohibits torture, and there were no reports that government officials employed it; however, courts applying Shari'a (Islamic law) sometimes imposed flogging sentences on both Muslims and non-Muslims as punishment for adultery, prostitution, consensual premarital sex, and for pregnancy outside of marriage. On March 13, a R'as al-Khaimah court sentenced a woman to five years and 150 lashes for adultery, and on June 11 a man was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery with a maid. The law allows for capital punishment, and, unlike in previous years, capital sentences were carried out." (Emphasis mine.)

"The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the government restricted these rights in practice. The government drafts all Friday sermons in mosques and censors private association publications (see section 2.c.). The law prohibits criticism of the rulers, and from acts to create [!] or encourage social unrest." (Emphasis mine.)

And, "Internet Freedom

"The government restricted access to some Web sites on the Internet. Internet chat rooms, instant messaging services, and blogs were monitored. Individuals and groups engaged in peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by email, without reports of government prosecution or punishment, although there was self-censorship apparent in many chat rooms and blogs." (Emphasis mine.)

I'm all for being tolerant and open-minded, but I'm not sure I like what I see in the UAE. They seem to have constitutional guarantees of human rights, and think that under Shari'a (Islamic law) it's okay stone a man to death for fooling around with a maid. I don't approve of adultery myself, but that seems a little harsh.

I know: it's not my country, and (following, for a very brief moment the principle of moral equivalence) if I can tolerate someone being forced to cover a provocative T-shirt, how can I possibly criticize monitoring chat rooms, blocking websites that a censor doesn't like, or stoning a guy for making out with a maid?

I may not have any business, criticizing the UAE's human rights scorecard.

But I do believe that there's something important to think about here. There will be terribly important decisions made in the next year or so, and I'm pretty sure that some people will question whether it is important to stop Islamic fanatics who want to impose their beliefs, and their laws, on us.

Given what's been going on in the United Arab Emirates, a "moderate" Islamic state, which would you rather live under: UAE rules, or USA rules?

Raed Jarrar, Just Who Is this Guy, and Why Should We Care?

Raed Jarrar is the man who wanted to fly on a JetBlue airliner, days after a massive terrorist effort to blow up multiple airliners had been stopped, wearing a black T-shirt decorated with bold Arabic writing in white.

Rather dressy, actually.

He finally flew, but with another T-Shirt, one purchased by a JetBlue employee.

Now, he's suing the Department of Homeland Security.

News reports were a trifle vague as to just who this Raed Jarrar is, so I did a little checking: mostly with Google. Mr. Raed Jarrar

• Wrote "An Illegal War Degenerates / Iraq: Raped" a month before the T-shirt incident
• Is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange (as of earlier today, August 13, 2007)
• Authors In The Middle / Raed Jarrar's Blog.

I hadn't heard of Global Exchange before learning about Mr. Jarrar. GE says that, in contrast to "US companies such as Nike abusing the women who make its shoes, the US government fueling an illegal, unjustified, murderous war in Iraq, or the World Trade Organization (WTO) undercutting consumer and environmental protections, Global Exchange offers itself as a partner for peace and social justice."

Why should we care? Considering the ACLU's involvement in his lawsuit, I don't think we've heard the last of his claim to victimhood. And, this is another instance of someone, intentionally or not, creating a situation which could reasonably discourage people from reporting a terrorist who was intent on carrying out a violent mission.

There's more about Mr. Jarrar and his amazing T-shirt at "T-Shirt Story 1: 'I Got Rights!'" and "T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense."

T-Shirt Story 2: Civil Rights vs Common Sense

My post earlier today, "T-Shirt Story 1: 'I Got Rights!'," tells about Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi living in the United States, who chose to wear a T-shirt with bold Arabic lettering, days after terrorists tried to blow up airliners. Again.

He's suing, of course.

Maybe scaring airline passengers is a constitutional right. The ACLU is backing Mr. Jarrar, the architect who says his civil rights were violated, so I think we can count on this case being taken as far as it will go in the courts.

I'm not going to argue one way or the other about the profound constitutional issues involved. Not in this post, anyway. I don't have expert knowledge in constitutional law.

On the other hand, I think that over a half-century of living in the real world has given me a little knowledge about common sense.

Based on my experience, Mr. Jarrar was not showing common sense. Not if he was serious about wanting to board that JetBlue airliner quietly.

I mean to say: a few days after terrorists tried to blow up airliners, wearing a black shirt with big white letters - in Arabic?!

The sad fact is that there is the people who knocked over the World Trade Center in New York City were from the Arabic-speaking part of the world. The people who have been chanting "Death to Israel! Death to the Great Satan America!" all these years have been doing so in Arabic.

Like it or not, Arabic has been linked with some very anti-social activity. Moreover, many people are not broad-minded enough to risk being part of the next jihadist martyrdom, just to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

I hope that the Flying Imams (I still think that would be a good name for a rock group) and Mr. Jarrar's T-shirt escapade don't represent an increase of false alarms triggered by daft behavior.

I'm very fond of my hypothetical Scandinavian Lutheran terrorists, so I'm going to indulge in another mini-story about them.

If you find that sort of thing annoying, you should stop reading this post now. There won't be anything else after this paragraph.

In case you missed the setup of this very hypothetical situation, here's an excerpt from a previous post.

Let's say that Scandinavian Lutherans had, for decades, been blowing up airplanes, buses, and themselves in what they called a Ragnarokathon. Leaned scholars explained that the Scandinavian Lutherans were doing this because western culture didn't appreciate lutefisk and lefse.

Then, in the fall of 2001, Scandinavian Lutherans, mostly from Sweden, blew up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Thousands of people were killed. The skyscraper was destroyed by crashing two airliners into it.

It's five years later. A few days earlier, Norwegians belonging to Eske Lutefisk og Lefse eller Dø (ELLD) were foiled in their plans to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

You're in a New York City airport. You notice that a fellow passenger, six-foot-something (two meters) Kjell Hanssen is wearing a black T-shirt.

The first thing you notice is probably not how well it sets off his pale blond hair and blue eyes. You're more likely to notice the big white letters spelling out "Stillhet er ikke en valgmuligheten." You might even notice the English translation, in small lettering below: "Silence is not an option," a phrase used by those protesting the war in Denmark.

You've got quite a few options, including

• Ignore Kjell, and hope he's not a terrorist
• Alert one of the flight crew or a guard of the shirt and its slogan, and your visceral reaction to it
• Beat Kjell to within an inch of his life, just in case
• Make a mental note to contribute to the Defense Alliance for Witless Norwegians (DAWN)

I'm sure you can think of other options.

I don't think that the second option would be that far out of line, under the circumstances.

Finally, in case you wondered what the name of that hypothetical Scandinavian terrorist group, "Elske Lutefisk og Lefse eller Dø" (ELLD), means, here's the name in English: "Adore Lutefisk and Lefse or Die." Catchy, isn't it?

T-Shirt Story 1: 'I Got Rights!'

"I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen.

"But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the US."

These were the words of Mr. Raed Jarrar, an architect, who wasn't allowed to board a JetBlue airliner in New York. Just because of his T-shirt!

If fact, he wasn't allowed to board until he got another T-shirt to wear.

Shocking!

And he's gonna sue!

That's not really so shocking, come to think about it.

On the surface, this looks like a clear case of racism, islamophobia, or something scary like that. Mr. Jarrar grew up in Iraq, moving to to the United States in 2005. The T-shirt he was wearing was black, with the words "We Will Not Be Silent" written on it in white.

In Arabic.

These days, "We Will Not Be Silent" is a slogan used by people against the war in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East. The BBC article on Mr. Jarrar's troubles says that the phrase comes from the White Rose dissident group in Nazi Germany. "Resistance group" might be a better term, but "dissident" is the more groovily relevant term these days. That's another topic.

The Curious Affair of the Architect's Shirt started August 12, 2007.

"We Will Not Be Silent" was boldly proclaimed on Mr. Jarrar's shirt in Arabic, and, in much smaller lettering, in English.

The black-shirted Iraqi-American boarded the flight "days after British law enforcement officials announced they had disrupted a plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights," the New York Sun pointed out.

I wouldn't have chosen that day to wear a black T-shirt with Arabic writing in big, bold, white lettering.

Mr Jarrar said that the T-Shirt slogan was protected by his "constitutional rights to free expression."

He finally consented wear another T-shirt, another T-shirt, purchased for him by a JetBlue employee at the airport gift shop. At least, that's what the Mr. Jarrar's complaint says.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has gotten involved with Mr. Jarrar's lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security over the T-shirt affair. This should be interesting.

If Mr. Jarrar's lawyer decides to play Mr. Jarrar as an a-political architect whose just happened to wear a T-shirt with a harmless slogan, I hope that the court will take a few facts in mind:

• A month before the T-shirt incident, Raed Jarrar wrote "An Illegal War Degenerates / Iraq: Raped." He has a definite position on U.S. involvement in Iraq, and has actively promoted that position
• Raed Jarrar is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange

Global Exchange says that, in contrast to "US companies such as Nike abusing the women who make its shoes, the US government fueling an illegal, unjustified, murderous war in Iraq, or the World Trade Organization (WTO) undercutting consumer and environmental protections, Global Exchange offers itself as a partner for peace and social justice."

Mr. Jarrar's bolg is In The Middle / Raed Jarrar's Blog.

Adam Yahiye Gadahn: Just Who Is this Guy, and Why Should We Care?

He started out being Adam Pearlman. He's also known as Adam Gadahn, and Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and Azzām al-Amrīk or Azzan al-Amiki or Azzam the American. The variations of his Azzam monikers probably come from issues involved in taking a name written in Arabic (عزام الأمريكك) and trying to write it with the Latin alphabet.

His appearance in another al Qaeda video has brought this California-born jihadist back into the news.

I'm inclined to agree with another blogger, who described him as an "arrogant armchair warrior."

I get the impression that Adam Gadahn isn't so much a leader of men as a nerd for al Qaeda.

Back in the sixties, Adam Gadahn's Jewish father was a bearded, long-haired student newspaper editor at the University of California at Irvine. The man who would become Adam's father was Phil Pearlman at the time. Phil Pearlman changed his surname to Gadahn later, when he converted to Christianity.

Adam Gadahn grew up on his parent's goat farm in southern California, later seeking meaning in death metal music after rejecting his perception of evangelical Christianity’s "apocalyptic ramblings" as "paranoid" and empty.

Eventually, having discovered Islam on the Internet, he showed up at a Garden Grove mosque in 1995 and converted to Islam. The mosque he joined was one of those that had given money when Sheikh "the Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman passed the hat (passed the red toolbox, to be precise), a few years before.

Rahman said that non-violent interpretations of jihad were weak, and that oppressed Muslims needed military support. "If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah," he told the people at that California mosque. That was December, 1992. In February, 1993, the Blind Sheikh and some of his colleagues set off a bomb under one of New York City's Twin Towers.

Jihad would not bring the World Trade Center in New York down until September of 2001, more than 8 years later.

Back to Azzam the American. After rejecting his Garden Grove mosque as being insufficiently Islamic, he joined al Qaeda and moved overseas. Apparently to Pakistan.

He's now serving al Qaeda as a sort of media adviser and spokesman to Americans.

In Adam Gadahan's first video appearance, in 2004, someone off-screen asked him, "You are an American. You have joined a movement waging war on America, and killing large numbers of Americans. Don’t you in any way feel that you are betraying your people and country?"

Azzam the American replied in a very frank and open way. "First of all," he said, "the allegiance and loyalty of a Muslim is to Allah, his messenger, his religion, and his fellow-believers, before anyone and anything else. So if there is a conflict between his religion and his nation and family, then he must choose the religion every time. In fact, to side with the unbelievers against Islam and Muslims is one of the acts that nullify one’s Islamic faith." After recalling that Muhammad had fought his own cousins, Gadahn said, "So some of the early Muslims fought and killed their closest relatives during battle."

After a harsh description of American foreign policy, Azzam the American addressed Americans "No, my former countrymen, you are guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty!" He ended with a warning: "The streets of America shall run red with blood." (Emphasis is mine.)

Adam Gadahn has been accused of treason, and is on the FBI's 'most wanted terrorists' list.

Why should we pay any attention to Adam Gadahn? He's possibly the highest-profile example of 'home-grown' terrorists: People who grow up in what are considered main-stream American households (or goat farms in southern California), convert to Islam and choose the fanatic fringe of that religion.

In addition to the home-grown variety, there are other people who are 2nd and 3rd generation members of Muslim families, who choose to align themselves with organizations dedicated to killing Americans.

It is vitally important to remember that terrorists, people who are dedicated to the destruction of those who do not meet with their approval, are not all 'foreigners.'

Some grew up in America, have American citizenship, and live in America. It is a foolish and deadly mistake to believe that 'Americans' should be shielded from the inconvenience of law enforcement's efforts to protect us.

My information came from a New Yorker article, "Azzam the American," January 22, 2007, by Raffi Khatchadourian, and from a blog, "Adam Gadahn: Myths and Facts," March 4, 2007, by Evan Kohlmann. It was Kohlmann's blog that led me to the New Yorker article.

"The Enemy of Your Enemy is Your Friend"

Now, that's something you don't see every day. The Arab League is sending representatives to Israel to discuss "a sweeping Arab peace initiative."

I'd be more impressed, if I hadn't been reading about plans for a "lasting peace in the Middle East" most of my life. I also remember the Six Day War and read about the Arab League's 1948 declaration of war on Israel.

(I try to give online references when possible, but this time it was a bit challenging to find something pallatable for the general online population, but still mildly objective. I settled for references that seemed only slightly into the it's-Israel's-fault camp.)

Not to seem pessimistic, but it would be very remarkable if a resolution between the descendants of Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Israel, came within my lifetime. In fact, that 37-century-old family feud shows little evidence of being ready to end.

Still, the Arab League's move is impressive. As USA Today reported, The Arab League "historically has been hostile toward the Jewish state," but has been getting a trifle more friendly "given the expanding influence of Islamic extremists in the region — a concern underscored by Hamas' violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last month."

Good for the Arab League. Even if they're only following the adage, "the enemy of your enemy is your friend," they're showing good sense.