Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle

Iran's Supreme Leader and his enforcers are doing their best to keep order in Iran. They're (apparently) killing protesters and (allegedly) rounding up reporters. According to Reporters Without Borders, Iran is now a world leader, when it comes to imprisoned or missing journalists.

"...Iran now has a total of 33 journalists and cyber-dissidents in its jails, while journalists who could not be located at their homes have been summoned by telephone by Tehran prosecutor general Said Mortazavi...." (Reporters Without Borders)

Three more reporters were arrested yesterday.

"...The latest arrests bring the number of journalists picked up and imprisoned since the disputed presidential election to 26.

" 'After demonising the foreign media, the authorities are trying to have it believed that Iranian journalists are spies in the pay of foreigners, confusing news reporting with spying', it added...." (Reporters Without Borders)

If you compared the two quotes, you're right: 33 plus three does not equal 26. Either the earlier figure was a typo, or "journalists and cyber-dissidents" aren't the same as "journalists." Or, Reporters Without Borders are making the numbers up and not keeping track of what they said before.

I'm going with the 'typo' or 'apples and oranges' scenarios for the moment. It's not that I trust Reporters Without Borders without reservation: but I don't think they're stupid, either.

For starters, they're aware of what's been going on since the dawn of the Information Age.

Today, If You've Got a Cell Phone, You're a Reporter - a Video Cell Phone, and You're a News Team

In the 'good old days,' maybe a dozen people would have seen Neda Agha Soltan die. Today, anyone with an internet connection and a decent browser can find the cell phone video of her death. (June 23, 2009)

When a regime locks up many professional journalists, and places tight restrictions on what the rest are allowed to do, people around the world are limited to the regime's official version of what's going on. And, whatever people post to the Internet.

YouTube Videos: Not Approved and Cleared by the Islamic Republic of Iran

"Police invasion on people tehran vanak Sq 13 June 2009"

PersianKoli, YouTube (June 13, 2009)
video, 1:01

"Riot police caught by crowd - Protests in Tehran after election"

Mousavi1388, YouTube (June 14, 2009)
video, 3:30

"Tehran Helicopter flies over protesters june 22 2009"

feridata1, YouTube (June 22, 2009)
video, 0:41

One thing I noticed in quite a number of videos identified as coming from Iran was the position of the camera.

American television journalists have been using what I call "ankle shots" on crowds for decades. It's quite effective at making a dozen or so people look like a huge crowd. The other angle, somewhat above eye level, is effective at making a cluster of a few hundred people look small in comparison with the surrounding street and buildings.

Some of the YouTube videos were taken from about mid-chest level. Quite a few of those also showed a wobbling, jerky image, as whoever was holding the camera ran for cover or dodged a club.

I selected these for their length, content, and comparatively steady camerawork.

There are a few lessons to be learned from these videos:

• The crowds may be mostly men, but some of them have been going bald for a while - and women are protesting too
• Not all Iranians are like their leaders
  • After expressing their opinion regarding the propriety of addressing citizen concerns with riot police, at least some of the 'rioters' took one of the police aside and assisted him

The motorcycle didn't fare as well as its rider. I suppose a lesson here is: Nothing says 'no' like a brightly burning motorcycle.

Whether or not this is the beginning of the end for the ayatollahs' regime, I think its clear that traditional information gatekeepers like journalists no longer have a near-monopoly on determining what the rest of us are allowed to see and hear.

That kind of freedom is messy and demands effort, but I think it's worth it.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)) The Quotations Page

Related posts:

• "Neda Agha Soltan, Iran, Cell Phone Cameras, and the Information Age"
  (June 23, 2009)
• "Remembering Iran's Neda Agha-Soltan"
  (June 22, 2009)
• "Iran's Election: The West Has been Meddling - Sort of"
  (June 22, 2009)
• " 'RIP NEDA, The World cries seeing your last breath ... We remember you.' "
  (June 21, 2009)
• "Iran, YouTube, Twitter, Technology and the Human Spirit"
  (June 19, 2009)
• "Iran: Election Fraud, 'Death to America' and the Information Age"
  (June 19, 2009)
• "North Korea, American Journalists, the Internet, and Power to the People"
  (June 16, 2009)
  • More, on my views about allowing people to use dangerous technology, at
    "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
    (June 27, 2008)
• "Win the Election, Lose the Country?"
  (June 15, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square Commemoration in Hong Kong: No Tanks"
  (June 5, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square 20th Anniversary: A Losing Battle for Traditional Information Gatekeepers"
  (June 3, 2009)

In the news:

• "Violence flares again in Tehran"
  CNN (June 24, 2009)
• "IRAN: Journalist Roxana Saberi discusses election protests with BBC"
  Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times blog (June 24, 2009)
• "Obama takes strong stance against Iran"
  PRESSTV (June 24, 2009)
• "Who was Neda? Slain woman an unlikely martyr"
  CNN (June 24, 2009)
• "Repressive mania continues : three more journalists arrested"
  Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières ((June 23, 2009)
• "Feared Basij militia has deep history in Iranian conflict"
  CNN (June 22, 2009)
• "Repression stepped up yet again as Iran becomes world’s biggest prison for journalists"
  Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières (June 21, 2009)

Roxana Saberi Out of Iran, in Vienna: Islamic Mercy Followed Through

Roxana Saberi, the journalist who grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, has dual citizenship, and went through several months of prison and trials in Iran, is in Vienna. She's spending some time with a friend.

That's good news.

I'm glad to see that she was allowed to actually leave Iran, after the Ayatollahs showed "Islamic mercy."

"...A judiciary spokesman says the appeals court reduced Roxanna's jail term to a two-year suspended sentence as a gesture of 'Islamic mercy' because she had cooperated with authorities and expressed regret...." (WDAY)

I'm impressed, if not favorably, with "Islamic mercy," as demonstrated by the Ayatollahs and their followers.

I still think there's reason to believe that the bizarre antics of Saudi courts, Sudan's reaction to a teddy bear, beheadings by Al Qaeda, and the Taliban's 'death to men who wear trousers' policy, aren't entirely representative of Islam.

But, Islam's loudest defenders seem determined to portray the religion as something that was over the top thirteen centuries ago, and has no place in the civilized world.

An ironic twist to the story of this Iranian-Japanese-American journalist and her treatment by Iran's rulers gets mentioned at the end of this video:

"She was working on a book about the Iranian culture when she was arrested." (AP)

"Freed Journalist Leaves Iran"

AssociatedPress, YouTube (May 15, 2009)
video (1:17)

Related posts:

• ""Islamic Mercy:" Roxana Saberi Free, Returning to Fargo, North Dakota"
  (May 11, 2009)
• "Ahmadinejad Urges Strong Defense for Roxana Saberi - 'Good Cop/Bad Cop'?"
  (April 19, 2009)
• "April 19, 2009
  Roxana Saberi, American-Iranian Journalist, Sentenced to Eight Years for 'Spying' "
  (April 19, 2009)
• "American Journalist Roxana Saberi: Fargo's Freedom; Iran's Ayatollahs"
  (April 14, 2009)

In the news:

• "US journalist freed from Iran arrives in Austria"
  The Associated Press (May 15, 2009)
• "Roxana Saberi Arrives in Vienna from Iran"
  The Lede, The New York Times Blog, (May 15, 2009)
  • includes embedded video
• " Freed U.S. journalist leaves Iran"
  CNN (May 15, 2009)
• "Roxana Saberi arrives in Vienna"
  Los Angeles Times (May 15, 2009)
• "Roxana Saberi is released from Iranian prison"
  WDAY (May 11, 2009)

Pro-Islamic Ads Coming to New York City Subways: There's a Real Danger Here, of Becoming Informed

You'll probably be seeing these ads this September, if you use New York City's subways:

---

---

(from FOXNews, used without permission)

Informative, Low-Key, Tasteful: What's the Problem?

The ad campaign, called The Subway Project, looks very straightforward and sensible. Just one catch. One of the people promoting it has alleged connections to the 1993 bombing of New York's World Trade Center.

With Friends Like This...

An American-born convert to Islam, Siraj Wahhaj, has a video on YouTube, telling about Islam and The Subway Project. That video is embedded farther down in this post. Siraj Wahhaj was also suspected, investigated, but not indicted, of being involved in the 1993 New York World Trade Center bombing. Siraj Wahhaj did testify at the trial of the "blind sheik," Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Suspecting Siraj Wahhaj made some sense. He's an imam, and apparently has preached this, about America: "In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam," words that, after dust had settled from a massive explosion, were bound to attract attention.

It's anyone's guess, why Siraj Wahhaj posted that video on YouTube. The Islamic Circle of North America, who are launching The Subway Project, didn't ask him to 'help' them, and have said so. His connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing doesn't help the ad campaign look mainstream, and neither does imam Wahhaj's assertion that the FBI and CIA are the "real terrorists."

In fact, The Islamic Circle asked him not to promote their campaign.

Here's that video:

(Update July 23, 2008)
The video, "The Subway Project - Coming To The NYC Subway This Ramadhan!," is no longer available in blog posts. "Embedding disabled by request" is what the YouTube page says. It is, however, still viewable from YouTube (2:55).

It's Some Kind of Islamic Plot, Right?

Some bloggers definitely think so. Samples:

• "Radical Imam Siraj Wahhaj & the Islamic Circle of North America are the ringleaders behind this latest Islamic propaganda."
• "Terrorists Recruiting" on NYC Subway System / MUSLIM SUBWAY ADS HAVE TERROR TIE-IN"

I'm not so sure. I seriously doubt that New York City's MTA is run by terrorist stooges, fools, or fifth columnists. Here's what a news report said:

• "Radical Imam Promotes Pro-Islamic Ad Campaign to Run on New York Subways"
  FOXNews (July 21, 2008)
  • "Aaron Donovan, spokesman for the state Metropolitan Transportation Authority, confirmed to FOXNews.com that the Islamic Circle had signed a contract to run the ads on 1,000 subway cars during the month of Ramadan.
  • "When asked if the MTA knew of Wahhaj's background before signing the contract, Donovan declined to comment on the imam specifically.
  • " 'As part of the process, we review the ad and go to the Web site to make sure there is no inappropriate content and decided in this case there was not,' he said."

I took a look at the website, whyislam.org/, myself, and didn't find anything particularly terroristic about it. I suppose it could be argued that Why Islam? is trying to lull Americans into a false sense of security. I don't think so, though.

Additions to the blogroll

After reading about Why Islam? and the ICNA, I decided to add both outfit's websites to the blogroll:

Islamic Circle of North America
"The goal of ICNA shall be to seek the pleasure of Allah (SWT) through the struggle of Iqamat-ud-Deen (establishment of the Islamic system of life) as spelled out in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)"

Why Islam?
Featuring "articles, books etc on Islam and comparative religion. ... This project has been initiated by volunteers from ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America). ... Islam does not expect the individual to suspend her faculties of reason and logic. On the contrary, it exhorts every individual to sincerely ponder over Creation and to free her mind from the shackles of false idols and ideologies. With this in mind, the WhyIslam project strives to bring reason and logic to the discourse on Islam."

The blogroll entries will be a bit condensed.

Why Post About The Subway Project?

I think that one of the problems facing America is ignorance of just what Islam is. The Subway Project seems aimed at reducing that level of ignorance. I still believe that there is reason to believe that "Islam is a peaceful religion," and see Indonesia as an example of how Islam and the Information Age can get along.

I am not a Muslim, but I think I may understand how Muslims sometimes feel in America. I converted to Catholicism as an adult, partly as a result of trying to find out what made Catholicism so bad. I'm very much aware of how ignorance of an identifiable group of people can be associated with fear and loathing of that group - and how knowledge of such a group very seldom is.

Considering that groups like Al Qaeda claim that they're defending Islam, I think it's a good idea to learn more about what Islam actually is.

(Update July 23, 2008)

Another post about The Subway Project in this blog: "The Subway Project and 'Why Islam?' - Terrorists in the Subways! Or, Not" (July 23, 2008)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

---

In the news (Updated July 23, 2008):

• "Islam subway ads cause stir in New York"
  CNN (July 22, 2008)
• "NY paper blasts Muslim ad project because of supporter"
  CNN (July 21, 2008)
• "Pro-Muslim Subway Ads Linked to Controversial Imam"
  Gothamist (July 21, 2008)
• "Radical Imam Promotes Pro-Islamic Ad Campaign to Run on New York Subways"
  FOXNews (July 21, 2008)

Afghanistan-Pakistan Border Skirmish: Diplomatic Protests and Videotape

Everybody agrees that there was a skirmish near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border: specifically, near the Gorparai post in the Mohmand frontier region.

At that point, the agreement ends.

"...Pakistan has lodged a strong diplomatic protest, saying the bombing of the Gorparai post in the Mohmand frontier region on Tuesday was a 'completely unprovoked and cowardly act.'... " ("US releases video of clash along Afghan border" (Yahoo! News (June 12, 2008)).

American national security adviser Stephen Hadley said that "U.S. officials 'have not been able to corroborate' claims by Pakistani officials that a U.S. skirmish with militants along the Afghan-Pakistani border killed 11 Pakistani troops." (Yahoo! News)

I don't know how the diplomatic wrangle will come out, but there's something new in the mix this time: videotape.

"To support its version, the coalition on Thursday took the unusual step of releasing excerpts of a video shot by a surveillance drone circling above the mountainous battle zone." (Yahoo! News)

There's more:

• "The grainy, monochrome images show about a half-dozen men firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades from a ridge at coalition troops off-camera in the valley below.
• "According to the voiceover in the video, the ridge is in Afghanistan's Kunar province, about 200 yards from the Pakistan border and close to the Gorparai checkpoint.
• "Neither the checkpoint nor any other structures are visible in the video excerpts.
• "The voiceover says the coalition forces were on a reconnaissance mission and returned fire as they tried to break contact and move to a point where a helicopter could pluck them to safety.
• "The video shows the "anti-Afghan militants" moving to a position identified as inside Pakistan and the impact of a bomb which the voiceover says killed two of them.
• "The survivors then fled into a ravine, where three more bombs were dropped, nearly three hours after the clash began. The voiceover said all the militants were killed.
• "One of the bombs fell off screen, and U.S. officials said about a dozen bombs were dropped in all...."
  (Yahoo! News)

Later, the article quotes national security adviser Hadley: "...'One of the problems is that it is still not exactly clear what happened,' he said. 'The reports quite frankly, even from sources within the United States, are conflicting.'

"Hadley said that the U.S. believes there was an operation on the Afghan side of the border by 'anti-coalition forces' that threatened coalition personnel. The forces then went 'back into Pakistan' and the coalition fighters 'tracked and struck those forces.' "

What makes this incident stand out from run-of-the-mill diplomatic spats is the drone overhead, recording images. I remember back when dashcams were put on police cars, and video playback of baseball and other games started. Umpires were worried, as I recall, that the videotape would show them making wrong calls. That happened from time to time, but the umps were surprised at how often they got it right.

Before drones and videotape, incidents like the one at the Aghan-Pakistani border got sorted out based on witnesses and written records. That's still going to be important, but now it's possible for us to see at least part of what happened.

As camera-carrying drones and other remote sensing technology is used more, I think that some people will be as surprised as the umpires.

Of course, the Pakistani diplomats and the coalition leaders could both be right. I get the impression that, the way things work in that part of the world, the "anti-coalition forces" may have been the Pakistani troops.

A Marine, A Puppy, and Serious Abuse: 'It Must be Real: I Saw it on YouTube!'

This must be a frustrating time for Berkeleyites and other anti-American atavisms.

Yearning for My Lai?

Back in the Golden Age of the sixties, the "My Lai massacre" was so well-known, and so many Americans had been properly conditioned, that "My Lai" generated an intense, visceral response almost everywhere. And maybe a sit-in, or even a protest march. Those were the days!

Abu Ghraib: a Forlorn Hope

Four years ago, Abu Ghraib showed real promise. In the first months of 2004, people around the world were being disgusted by more and more photos of disgusting things that were being done in a prison in Iraq. I got the impression that the Al Jazeera version, that "US commander 'allowed prison abuse' " was the default attitude. To be fair, Aljazeera did write that there was a US army inquiry into the mess.

In fact, American military officials realized that something was wrong, and had been investigating Abu Ghraib since August 11, 2003.

What Went So Wrong?!

Possibly because news today isn't controlled by the tight little quartet of The New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC, with PBS riding point, Americans just don't seem to be as well managed these days. Four years later, Abu Ghraib just doesn't have the traction of My Lai: and Abu Ghraib was a real scandal¹.

Back to Reality: A Marine, a Puppy(?), and a Video

Recently, someone put a video on YouTube. It showed someone in what looks like a Marine lance corporal's uniform, throwing what looks like a puppy (the puppy doesn't move) over a cliff. There's even an off-camera yelp.

Shocking! Deplorable!

Well, yes: it is. At least, the Marines think so.

" 'The video is shocking and deplorable and is contrary to the high standards we expect of every Marine,' Major Chris Perrine, the public affairs director at the Marine Corps base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, said in a statement.

" 'This video came to our attention this morning, and we have initiated an investigation,' he said. 'We do not tolerate this type of behavior and will take appropriate action.' "

Posts I found in the blogosphere about this latest evidence of American atrocities was surprisingly low-key:

• "Marine throws puppy off of a cliff"
• "Oh crap - here we go again. US Military"
  ("...I guess this Marine wants to become the next Lynndie England. Sad.")
• "Marine abusing puppy on video"

In fact, at least one blogger brought up a reasonable question:

• "Marine Tosses Puppy Off Cliff Video, Fact or Fiction?"

The video isn't available any more: I checked at YouTube, and found that it's been pulled: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.."

That last blog ("Marine Tosses Puppy ....") observed that the video was of low quality to begin with, and that YouTube compression hadn't done it any favors. Also that the yelp didn't seem to exhibit a doppler effect (what happens with sound and motion that makes a passing truck sound like it's going "wheeee-oooo.")

I'd like to believe that the video is a fake, but it's possible that there is a Marine out there who threw a puppy down a cliff, and someone who videotaped the animal abuse. If that's so, I'm sincerely glad that I'm not that Marine.

This Isn't the Sixties

As for whether the puppy-pitching perpetrator will become a center of anti-American feelings in the tradition of My Lai, I doubt it. This isn't the sixties any more:

• A few news editors on the coasts don't decide what Americans hear and read.
  A fragmented assortment of news outlets, and hordes of bloggers, ensure that facts get out, no matter who doesn't like them
• American society isn't focused on an angst-filled generation, whose parents had followed 'expert' advice while chasing a dream of material success
• Remember those
  • 'I Was a Teenage...' movies
  • Teen-on-the-street interviews, where reporters asked teens for opinions about socioeconomic aspects of contemporary political issues?
    • And took the answers seriously?

I hope that, if in fact a puppy was treated that way, whoever killed it is provided with consequences.

---

More, at "Marines: Puppy Abuse YouTube Video 'Deplorable,' Investigation Launched" FOXNews (March 4, 2008)

After Word: My Lai and Abu Ghraib, Perception and Reality

¹The "My Lai massacre" doesn't seem to be quite the monstrous atrocity that Americans were led to believe. An alternative to the standard anti-American story:

• The My Lai attack took place in a free fire zone (by definition occupied only by Viet Cong)
• My Lai was be a supply depot for Viet Cong food and munitions
• After questioning My Lai villagers turned out to be Viet Cong and/or VC sympathizers
• My Lai villagers refused to expose spider/fighting holes, but U.S. soldiers found them anyway
• The U.S. soldiers were battle weary, and believed that the villagers were the same enemy which had recently engaged them with sniper fire a booby traps: which wasn't too far from the truth

This fairly routine, if violent, act of war became an example of how heartless, cruel, and barbaric the American military was, back in the sixties. As I said before, it must be frustrating that "Abu Ghraib," representing a real set of atrocities, failed to become a rallying cry.

(I got my information from: "an informal Q & A resource" and "Vietnam War My Lai Massacre Department of Defense Documents." In both cases, the sources of information are units of the U.S. military - 'and you know what they're like.')

Strait of Hormuz, Day 5: Iran's Got a Video, Too

Iran released a video that shows a nice, peaceful Iranian boat at least 100 yards away from the big American warships. An Iranian crewman is holding a microphone. A later release of the video had nice, peaceful words, too.

An official with the Pentagon said that the video seemed to have been taken around the time of the Sunday incident. The part where Iranian boats played chicken with the American warships seems to have been edited out.

Iran's video of their version of what happened has been aired:

• Iran's own Press TV, a government-run English-language channel - its signal is often blocked inside Iran
• Another state-run channel, Alalam - an Arabic-language channel

Since Al-Alam's English-language site says, "Alalam News website reflects the policies of Alalam satellite television.
"Launched on August 15, 2006, the website is trying to disseminate news in a sincere and impartial manner by keeping up a moderate line. In its coverage of events, Alalam News is trying to avoid stirring religious and ethnic strife."

It's pretty obvious to anyone outside some of the groovier Philosophy departments that someone's not telling the truth. The Iranian and American versions of the Sunday morning incident in the Strait of Hormuz are quite incompatible.

I'm inclined to believe the American version. Even if I were to assume that both governments were equally reliable, there's the matter of the two videos -

• The Americans would have had to do a top-rate special effects job: Faking several minutes of hand-held video
• Iran's government could easily have recorded their video while the boats were at a distance, then dubbed the audio in

And, there's the matter of witnesses.

• The Americans have the crews of three ships: those who were above decks, at any rate

It's conceivable that they could all be ordered to lie about what they saw - but I doubt it.

And yes, I'm biased. I remember how this lot got control of Iran, and I'm not all that impressed with how they've run the place since.

More About "Pro-War" Cambridge Boy Scouts

"Local Boy Scouts Accused of Being Too 'Pro-War'" - A paragraph telling how Cambridge narrowly escaped supporting American troops, plus a video.

Those Cambridge Boy Scouts have two strikes against them.

First, they put those "Pro-War" donation boxes at Cambridge, Massachusetts, poling places. The provocative phrase "Support Our Troops" seems to have been on the containers.

Second, the Boy Scouts (who are known uniform-wearers) did not get permission from the election board to set up the donation boxes. Out here in Reality, where I live, that might be a valid point.

Even though the Cambridge Boy Scouts affronted the sensibilities of Cambridge's culture, I noted that they had made an effort to fit in:

• The donation boxes were diverse - brown and white, cardboard and plastic, in peaceful co-existence
• When interviewed, the Boy Scouts, well-known for their militaristic practice of wearing uniforms, wore ordinary-looking civilian clothing

Yes, I'm being facetious.

The idea of disrespecting the Boy Scouts because they wear uniforms is ridiculous.

So is calling donation boxes with "Support our Troops" on them pro-war. In my opinion, at least.

Related post:
"You Have Got to be Kidding: Boy Scout Care Packages to US Troops Banned in Cambridge"
(November 16, 2007)

Osama bin Laden, Superstar!

Blogger's preface:

• I've been serious about the situation in Iraq for days.
• Last night I read about Britney Spears' remarkable song-and-dance routine at the MTV's Video Music Awards.
• Today, I watched Senators act as if they were doing screen tests for a contemporary Mack Sennett comedy.

I'll let you decide whether or not those phenomena had anything to do with this post.

Now, the post:

For the second time in less than a month, Sheik Osama bin Laden, one of Al Qaeda's founders, and spiritual leader of many jihadists, released an inspirational video.

Bin Laden achieved fame after the super-mega-hit performance of some of his followers six years ago today. Their attacks, on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon, were slightly marred by uncooperative passengers on Flight 93.

Perhaps in hopes of producing another smash hit soon, Sheik Osama bin Laden urges Muslim youth to join a "caravan" of martyrs, like 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri.

Bin laden shows the sort of humility so typical of megastars, by reducing his onscreen presence to a simple still photograph, possibly taken from his recent super-hit video. Bin Ladens' voice plays over the picture.

Hijacker and martyr Waleed al-Shehri, in a posthumous appearance, taped before he helped kill thousands of people, warns America that there will be more Muslims like him, bringing death and destruction to America: "We shall come at you from your front and back, your right and left."

Inspirational words!

Wouldn't it be nice, if all that energy could be channeled into something a little more productive than mass destruction? Maybe a "keep your oasis clean" campaign, or saving the Egyptian tortoise?

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Osama bin Laden: Media Star

If you liked Osama bin Laden's video that came out earlier this month, you'll love his new video, appearing soon on a screen near you!

At least, that seems to be what Al Qaeda is hoping. An "Islamic militant Web site" featured a banner announcing bin Laden's coming hit. The New York Sun's Associated Press article quoted the banner in English, although I'm pretty sure it's a translation. Here it is:

"'Coming soon, God willing, the testament of the attacks on New York and Washington, Abu Musab Waleed al-Shehri, presented by Sheik Osama bin Laden, God preserve him,' the banner read. It showed an image of Sheik bin Laden wearing the same black beard and clothes as in the most recent video."

I'm not a big Bin Laden fan, myself, mostly because I prefer a society where my wife can get groceries on her own, my daughters can learn to read and write, and my son won't be taught to beat his future wife and daughters. Call me a bigot, but I don't approve of beliefs like that.

As a reminder of a previous Al Qaeda mega-happening, Abu Musab Waleed al-Shehri is one of the nineteen martyrs who struck a blow against the infidel five years and 364 days ago today.

(I learned something today. Sheik (شيخ‎) seems to be Bin Laden's preferred title, so in the spirit of multiculturalism, I'll drop the western "Mr.")

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

When Osama Talks, People Listen

When I started "Another War-on-Terror Blog, I saw it as a chronicle and commentary on the major conflict of the early 21st century. I still do.

It is not a "political" blog. I'm interested in individual politicians and political parties in America, and elsewhere, only as I believe they are involved in this conflict.

However, I have very definite views about this conflict. For example, I would prefer that my family survive, and that we not live in a land where women must be confined to a house, unless accompanied by a kinsman. Judging from what has happened in countries where the West's enemies rule, this isn't an unreasonable concern.

Osama bin Laden has a new video. It surfaced in America, ahead of its planned release date. The early opening was apparently the reason why Al-Qaeda-affiliated websites around the world shut down, coming back online one by one. A reasonable presumption is that the jihadists were concerned about a security problem with their online presence, and were taking steps to find and fix it, if it existed.

If bin Laden was a media star, his career would be in serious trouble. This video is the first one he's released since 2004.

However, since he's a sort of religious leader/military commander/philosopher, bin Laden's status doesn't seem to have suffered.

I'm afraid that this is going to be a rather long post, since I make extensive quotes from a translated transcript of bin Laden's speech. I believe this is necessary, to do justice to Sheik in Laden's remarkable statements.

The short version of the speech is that:

• "The major corporations" are responsible for the Vietnam War, JFK's assassination, and the Bush presidency
• America should get out of Iraq
• The Democratic party is greatly to blame for not getting America out of Iraq
• The Democratic party is a tool of the major corporations
• People of America should rise up, overthrow their oppressors, embrace Islam, and live happily ever after

I'll freely grant that I'm doing nothing to make his words sound sensible.

Here's a brief (no, really, it's brief, compared to the original) set of excerpts from bin Laden's latest video. I've put a few key words and phrases in bold.

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.

"And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being in the majority?

"I will come back to reply to this question after raising another question, which is:"

What follows is a series of references to the Bush Administration, the Vietnam War, and the JFK assassination. bin Laden reminds us that "al-Qaida wasn't present at that time, but, rather those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing."(!) Apparently, "the major corporations," angered at JFK's plans to end the Vietnam war, were somehow for JFK's assassination.

A bit later, he gets back to the Democrats.

"So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment - and there isn't any - in the Democrat's failure to stop the war. And you're the ones who have the saying which goes, 'Money talks.' And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war.

"However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against your. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side. It has now become clear to you and to the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.

"And with that, it has become clear to all that they are the real tyrannical terrorists. In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factors of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representatives of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerated fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.

"And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and Brown - still talk about freedom and human rights with a flagrant disregard for the intellects of human beings. So is there a form of terrorism stronger, clearer and more dangerous than this? This is why I tell you: as you liberated yourselves from the slavery of monks, kings, and feudalism, you should liberate yourselves from the deception, shackles and attrition of the capitalist system.

"If you were to ponder it well, you would find that in the end, it is a system harsher and fiercer than your systems in the Middle Ages. The capitalist system seeks to turn the entire world into a fiefdom of the major corporations under the label of 'globalization' in order to protect democracy."

And the speech goes on.

After that section, I half-way expected him to say, 'workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!' Come to think about it, he did say something like that.

Bin Laden offers Islam as a tax-free alternative, a religion that "also puts peoples' lives in order with its laws; protects their needs and interests; refines their morals' protects them from evils; and guarantees for them entrance into Paradise in the hereafter through their obedience to Allah and sincere worship of Him alone."

It sounds great, but after seeing what the Taliban did to Afghanistan while they were running the place, I'm not all that keen on living under an Islamic state. At least not one like that.

I could live with that wonderful Islamic fashion statement, the burqa: particularly since, as a man, I wouldn't have to wear one. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to wear white socks. Apparently, women were forbidden to wear them.

Burqas and a white-sock ban are relatively trivial, although I think it shows how micro-managed an Islamic state would be under the ministrations of the likes of bin Laden and crew.

What really disturbs me is what happened to the people at Robatak Pass and Yakaolang.

And, what happened to two irreplaceable works of art after a sufficiently Islamic state took over. I'd known about the Buddhas of Bamyan, and would have preferred to live in a world where they still existed. The AIIS slide show of the Bamiyan Buddhas just aren't be the same as having the real thing available.

I know that the Taliban isn't bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, but the two outfits seem to be on about the same page, when it comes to what constitutes true Islam.

A transcript of a translation of bin Laden's new video is available at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/bin_laden_transcript.pdf

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Bin Laden's New Video

Osama bin Laden has something in common with J. K. Rowling. Somehow, copies of Rowling's final "Potter" book were released early. I felt sympathy for the loyal fans, whose excitement and enjoyment of the final Potter book's release was blunted by the premature exposure.

Osama bin Ladn's new video was found and released, apparently before Al Qaeda wanted, by America. Not long after Washington said it had the video, "all the Islamic militant Web sites that usually carry statements from Al Qaeda went down and were inaccessible, in an unprecedented shutdown."

It's frustrating, when the impact of a major media work is diminished by early release. Somehow, though, I can't find it in me to feel sorry for Al Qaeda.

One expert said he thought that Al Qaeda took down the sites, in connection with trying to find out how the video was leaked.

There's a transcript of the video on the Fox News site.

This is the first bin Laden video released since October, 2004. If he were a singer, I'd say that his career was in trouble.

Joking aside, the news reports say that there's no definite indication of a 9/11-type attack on America, and it's possible that this video was intended to impress the infidels over here with bin Laden's superior beliefs.

I've heard, and read, that Islamic belief and tradition forbids conversion-by-force without first telling the infidel to adopt Islam. I'm skeptical of the online resources I found, though, and don't have easy access to works like the Hidayah.

So, I don't know whether bin Laden's offer to Americans to embrace Islam is a example of an ask-first-then-attack custom, or not.

It's late, I'll get back to this another day.

A note about this blog: to date, I've been referring to bin Laden's outfit as "al Qaeda." Starting today, I'll by writing, "Al Qaeda," since the definite article in the organization's name is part of the name, just like "the" is part of the name of "The New York Times."

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

More about "Yeh Hum Naheen" / "This is Not Us"

There's more about the (now #1 hit) song from Pakistan, "Yeh Hum Naheen." (Urdu for "This is Not Us.") at "Reporter's Notebook: A Different Kind of Terror Tune" (August 08, 2007, By Greg Palkot).

As the article says, the lyrics are the best way to describe the song: "This story that is being spread in our names is a lie. - The name by which you know us we are not."

The sons of a TV and media producer told their father that they were had had enough of fanatic Muslims in Britain who thought they were too secular. And they were "sick of seeing terrorists cloak their activity in religion."

I am very glad to see not only that this small group of Muslims decided to take a bold step and renounce the fanatics around them, but that the song has become so wildly popular in Pakistan, and now around the world.

I'd like to think that this is what happens when people try to communicate with ideas instead of car bombs.

Previous post on this topic: Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Moderate Muslim Video from Pakistan: Very Good News

There's a new video out from the Islamic world, and it isn't the sort of death-to-America stuff we've been hearing all these years. The headline is "Pakistani Pop Stars Team Up" on FoxNews.com - "Moderate Muslims in Pakistan use music to take a public stand against extreme Muslim militants."

[Note: The FoxNews.com video was replaced, as of 11:20 pm central time USA, at the latest, with more current content. Yeh Hum Naheen Fan Center now seems to be the best page for information. Includes, as of 11:30 pm central time USA, two videos: a Reuters News and a Nova TV Interview. 'Norski']

Yeh Hum Naheen is the title of the song, distributed by Fnik Music. The title, translated, is "This Is Not Us." The talent is Haroon, Ali Haider, Ali Zafar, Strings, Shufqat Amanat Ali and Hadiqa Kiani. Waseem Mahmood is the video's director.

These kids have guts.

Good for them. This has the potential to reach people in a way that written words and speeches can't. "Let me write the songs of a nation; I don't care who writes its laws," has more than a grain of truth in it (Andrew Fletcher).

There's more about the video at Pakistani pop group releases peace song (Political Gateway) and TODAY'S EDITORIAL: This Is Not Us 13 Jul 2007, 0003 hrs IST (Muslims for America).

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.