This just proves what I’ve said all along: Ralph Nader is an al-Qaeda operative.

Michelle Malkin was right! I hereby rechristen seatbelts “freedom belts” and refuse to use them.

And it also shows how the Republican right wing shares the ideas of al Qaeda.

The right wing is already constructing the not so elaborate strawman that liberals loved Al Qaeda before this, but now they won’t, because now they realize Al Qaeda isn’t “PC”.

Come again? These people are so fucking deluded.

Obviously the corporate media focus is on the inflammatory rhetoric, but this sentence caught my eye:

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies.

I don’t think al Qaeda needs to do much convincing there.  Obama’s campaign kowtowing to AIPAC and his talk of throwing more violence at Afghanistan and Pakistan probably haven’t inspired a lot of Hope™ in the Muslim world.

Also, let’s not forget that though al Qaeda clearly are major-league douchebags, they began as our douchebags.  Without a long history of murderous and ham-fisted U.S. foreign policy in the Arab and Muslim world, there might not be an al Qaeda.  More to the point of your post, Mr. Taylor, our sordid foreign policy history unfortunately puts the race-baiting, cave-dwelling terrorist in the position of being crudely correct.  I’d like to see Obama prove him wrong, but his associations with imperialist hacks like Albright and (hard-core right-wing Zionist) Dennis Ross don’t bode well.

Also, let’s not forget that though al Qaeda clearly are major-league douchebags, they began as our douchebags.

This is something “everybody knows” but isn’t exactly true. The Mujihadeen is not equal to the Taliban which is not equal to Al Qaeda. They were a PART of the anti-Soviet resistance, but not the main part. In fact a large part of them only tolerated them as so long as the Soviets were their enemy, after that they couldn’t stand them (remember the Northern Alliance)?

Think of how much the Sunni nationalist resistance in Iraq hated Al Qaeda after they figured out what fanatics they were. Same deal.

IIRC the main backers of the Taliban/Al Qaeda wing of the anti-Soviet forces was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They sent in the “Arab Afghans” that became radicalized from fighting the Soviets.

heh…

When it comes to murdering our soldiers, the outcry is minimal. *NOW*, you’re REALLY pissed because of an insult?

This demonstrates a long held belief that the left perceives racism as the number one issue….above national security, above the economy, above everything. It’s a child’s view of the world.

The right wing is already constructing the not so elaborate strawman that liberals loved Al Qaeda before this, but now they won’t, because now they realize Al Qaeda isn’t “PC”.

Come again? These people are so fucking deluded.
Ben D.  on 11/19 at 12:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

heh…

When it comes to murdering our soldiers, the outcry is minimal. *NOW*, you’re REALLY pissed because of an insult?

This demonstrates a long held belief that the left perceives racism as the number one issue….above national security, above the economy, above everything. It’s a child’s view of the world.
Bob Zimerman on 11/19 at 01:09 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Am I good at getting down what talking points the far right will use, or what?

Has Al Qaeda officially jumped the shark?

Actually, I read somewhere that the original Arabic translates more directly to “house slave” than “house negro” and that the translators have embellished a bit.  But the core message is the same.  Namely, is this really the best way for a terrorist operation to spend its time?  I mean, really?  Isn’t there a dank cave in Pakistan that could use some redecorating?  Get back to us when you plan on actual jihad and not these petty verbal snipes.  I hope they realize they just sound like a bunch of whiny ass Republicans.

A recent Language Log post linked to the Economist on this one:

But Mr Zawahiri calls Mr Obama one of the “house slaves” (“a’biid al-bayt”), not “house Negro” (“zinjii al-bayt”, as Malcolm X’s words are translated). Mr Zawahiri is a criminal and a loon, but even so, his actual words, offensive enough, should be reported correctly.

Yeah, Bob, I’m with you on that one.  Many’s the time that I’ve seen the endless calls to get American troops out of the Iraq shooting gallery, ensure that that they have proper medical care when wounded, and ensure that they aren’t screwed out of their GI benefits when they come back and though, God, these people hate the troops!

Am I good at getting down what talking points the far right will use, or what?

Bob/Fred is nothing but predictable.

But, but, but… the Republicans told me that al Qaeda would be celebrating in the streets if Obama got elected!!!

I hear Al Qaeda is now recruiting from the No Quarter comments section.

All due respect, Ben D., but you’re splitting hairs on a bald head.

IIRC the main backers of the Taliban/Al Qaeda wing of the anti-Soviet forces was Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Are you implying that the IIRC did what it did without any input from the U.S. intelligence community?  Are you suggesting that the Reagan administration had nothing to do with recruiting the same “Arab Afghans” to whom you refer?  I agree that the “Mujihadeen is not equal to the Taliban which is not equal to Al Qaeda.”
But when it comes to U.S. involvement in the late 70’s thru early ‘80s—before the Afghan Civil War and long before 9/11—what is your point?

It is true that the Afghanistan that gave birth to al Qaeda and the Taliban is the collective responsibility of several foreign powers, powers that often had unrelated and conflicting goals for their machinations.  But to suggest that the U.S. government was not a major player—especially in the earlier stages—is incredibly dishonest.

How did al-Qaeda recruit? One argument Osama bin Laden used was that there were US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Why were they there? The US put them there to protect SA from Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Why did we need to do that? Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

Why did he do that? He thought he could get away with it and the US wouldn’t mind.

What made him think that?  We were his pals. We helped him out during the Iran-Iraq War. Donald Rumsfeld even shook his hand. This all happened under Republican administrations.

Why’d we do that? Well, the Iranians were the bad guys, because they stormed the US Embassy during the 1979 revolution.

Why’d they do that?  We’d been propping up the Shah for years, including helping to depose Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953.

What’s so special about that year?  Well, it happened right after we got a Republican administration; Truman had refused to help the British do it, but Eisenhower was more willing.

I like how they tried to provide the proper context, with video, their own translation, and a history lesson about American race relations, so that their followers and media reporters could better understand their “We don’t like blacks” joke and not accidentally misunderstand it or mistranslate it. Al Qaeda, if you have to explain the joke, it isn’t funny.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

Are you implying that the IIRC did what it did without any input from the U.S. intelligence community?

I feel dumb today. Does “IIRC” mean something other than “if I recall correctly”?

al-Qaida’s just mad that the one they endorsed lost the election.

“Are you suggesting that the Reagan administration had nothing to do with recruiting the same “Arab Afghans” to whom you refer?”

They had nothing to do with recruiting them, yes. That was the doing of Saudis, Egyptians, and Pakistanis. But they did have something to do with funding and training them which was a huge mistake.

The biggest problem with our intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s wasn’t that we got involved to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a Soviet satellite. It was hanging them out to dry after 1989, when we should have instead insured that the non-Islamist, non-crazy faction of the Afghan resistance won out in the ensuing civil war. Instead we got out as fast as we could, leaving a failed state and power vacuum behind that the (now Saudi/Pakistani funded) Taliban filled. George H.W. Bush is to blame there.

This would have been relatively simple to do, too, because most of the nationalist Afghanis that fought the Soviets couldn’t stand the foreign Arab/Pakistani jihadists. They saw them as fanatics.

“What, are they surprised that their AmTaliban friends lied to them when they said Obama was a Mooselim?
Ms Kate on 11/19 at 02:03 PM”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, we are talking about a guy who probably believes the entire world is controlled by a secret Jewish Emperor at Geneva, so probably.

I think 1) it’s a message to AQ sympathizers rejecting any softening due to Obama’s election and 2) it’s a ham-fisted attempt to rile up US hostilities, something AQ has found makes a good recruiting tool.

I thought a house negro was just a slave who was of a higher caste due to working in the house and not the field.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t “HN” (I don’t want to use the actual phrase, ick) also carry connotations of “Uncle Tom” status (the stereotype, not the actual book character)? If I recall correctly, the house servants were seen as more likely to betray their brothers and sisters in the fields, telling gossip and secrets in exchange for nicer privileges in the household.

Which would make sense from the flip side - it’s probably harder sometimes to have an “easier” job but living in close proximity with people who hate you and treat you like an animal than it is to have a “harder” job but the care and companionship of your fellow slaves. In that case, you might actually drop some gossip against someone else just as a survival mechanism.

Don’t know if AQ meant to convey this meaning, or if they are even aware of it, but if so they might be saying that Obama isn’t a “True Black Man”. (And we already know he’s not a “Real True Christian” from the other thread! Sigh…)

The biggest problem with our intervention in Afghanistan in the 80s wasn’t that we got involved to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a Soviet satellite.  It was hanging them out to dry after 1989, when we should have instead insured that the non-Islamist, non-crazy faction of the Afghan resistance won out in the ensuing civil war.

Let’s not confuse the bug with the feature here.  We ‘hung them out to dry’ because we didn’t give a shit about the Afghan people.  We got our pound of flesh out of the Soviets, and we recruited ‘crazy Islamists’ from around the world to help do it.  That wasn’t an accident, no matter who we asked to do the footwork for us.  I repeat: our “intervention” in Afghanistan wasn’t for the benefit of the Afghan people, otherwise it would have taken on a different shape and we wouldn’t have left them in the shit afterward.

But enough about imperial apologies, let me get back to the point: if you think an Obama administration is going to behave in a qualitatively different fashion, then you’re reading some tea leaves that have yet to grow.  Current signs point to a continuation of Clintonian policy, which consists largely of double talk, air strikes, and pissing on the Palestinians.  Excepting, of course, that Obama will begin with two illegal and bitterly opposed occupations on his plate.  This is going to be ugly.

A commenter over at Washington Monthly made an interesting claim:

First, they used an Arabic expression that does not mean literally “House Negroe” - Abid l-Beit means “Slaves of the House” or Domestic Slaves. However, in Arabic dialectal used in the Mashreq Levant plus Egypt), Abid (sing. Abd) carries the connotation of Black African Slave with a nasty overtone verging on ‘nigger.’ - The Lounsbury

Don’t know if this is true, but it sounds plausible.

Pro-tip to Zawahiri: Hillary and McCain already tried that.

Let’s not confuse the bug with the feature here.  We ‘hung them out to dry’ because we didn’t give a shit about the Afghan people.

I never said otherwise. But doing what was best for the Afghan people would have helped us also, and that is the lesson to take away from it.

But enough about imperial apologies, let me get back to the point: if you think an Obama administration is going to behave in a qualitatively different fashion, then you’re reading some tea leaves that have yet to grow.

If McCain had won we would have permanent bases for the next 100 years in Iraq and a probable war with Iran. Now we will be out of Iraq by 2011 or so, there will be no war with Iran, and we will actually be fighting Al Qaeda instead of screwing around with a distraction in Iraq.

AS for the Palestinian issue, having a Democratic government in the United States and a Labour government in Israel at the same time (if the elections go the way they are headed there) will do a lot to move towards resolving the conflict. Much more than having a Likud/Republican combination, which would do nothing but inflame tensions and give a blank check to settlers.

Ms Kate, Malcolm X explains the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ

If you’re against the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and think Israel shouldn’t exist, yes, you’re going to be let down. But you should have realized that when Cynthia McKinney lost.

How exactly is he a HN if he owns the frealin’ house?  It’s like claiming Rhett Butler was a HN - Rhett may have owned some, but he wasn’t one.  The fun part is that slaves were sometimes very powerful in Muslim history and ran things more so than their masters.  Heck, the best response to this would to compare Obama to Qutb-ad-Din, who started the Slave Dynasty in medieval India; “You can call me a slave, but you will address me as “Mister Sultan Slave, Sir”.”

I would figure, given the complicated social histories of various ethnic groups in the middle east, that Al Q has a pretty darn good idea of how the “house negro” or “house slave” idea might work. And if they didn’t, they could just look at the wingnuts in this country with their antifeminist women and race-baiting minorities…

But seriously, Al Q is in the same position as the Iranian leadership right now: dathly afraid of getting what they’ve been insisting they want.

Paul—

Did you see the article on how all of a sudden, the Iranian leadership is afraid to negotiate without precondition? Even though they’ve been asking to negotiate for years without precondition? And the explanation they gave for it didn’t even make sense! It is like they thought Obama would never win, and they didn’t prepare.

Ben:

When you’re an unpleasant loon, your only hope for good PR is to have a crazier, nastier loon opposing you. (GWB, the gift that keeps on giving)

Wow, Ben D., that’s impressive: two Straw Men and a Cynthia McKinney smear in only two short sentences.

First of all, our presence in Afghanistan has very little, in the practical sense, to do with al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda does exist, but it is also more important as a brand than as an organization.  The real concern in Afghanistan has more to do with the Taliban and the conditions that make them popular.  The Bush Administration thought it could control Afghanistan (for various reasons), and they thought they could do it with less men and material than were committed by the British and Soviets before them.  Committing a relatively paltry military force to rooting out a terrorist organization from an incredibly and historically difficult region (topographically, culturally, and politically) was always a fool’s errand, especially since that organization has sympathizers and an endless supply of recruits all over the world.  Obama, for his part, seems committed to doubling down on the foolishness.

Second, equating support for Palestinian human rights with a desire for the destruction of Israel displays a cynicism that would make Karl Rove proud.  Even Hamas has offered to come to the bargaining table, but Israel—controlled as it is now by reactionary right-wing factions supported without question by our government—is not interested in negotiating (if they ever had been, then Hamas probably wouldn’t exist.  Deja vu!).  Israel and its blind supporters are forever tasking the Palestinians with the ever-shifting goalposts of ‘recognizing Israel’s right to exist’ and ‘ending terror,’ while the illegal settlements keep growing and the Palestinians continue to suffer under the dehumanizing occupation.  But you already knew that, didn’t you?

Third, I challenge you to demonstrate that Cynthia McKinney has expressed a desire for either al Qaeda’s continued success or Israel’s destruction.  And if you tell me you were only joking, then you are very good at right-wing ‘humor,’ which largely consists of hurling baseless smears and insults that you can later say were only ‘jokes.’

Huh? You say Bush didn’t commit enough troops to Afghanistan (I agree with this) but then say sending more troops won’t work, either? Come again?

Second, equating support for Palestinian human rights with a desire for the destruction of Israel displays a cynicism that would make Karl Rove proud.

This is rich coming from someone who seems to equate the “Israelis” with “The Likud Party”. Jesus, the irony. I didn’t say anything about “destruction”, but I was addressing the pipe dream some on the Green Party left have about a one-state solution of mixed Israelis and Palestinians. I’d favor that too, in an ideal world, but let’s be real: it won’t happen anytime soon.

In the mean time, I believe the settlements should end in the West Bank. I believe there should be a two-state solution, one Jewish and one Palestinian, with a shared Jerusalem as both states capitals (either that, or an undivided free city), with the rest of the states borders mirroring 1967.
Until then, the Palestinians do have a right to resist the Israelis in the occupied territories, which are ruled brutally and illegally.  This is the opinion, broadly, of the mainstream American and Israeli left. If you think that is right wing fanaticism or “blind support”  it says more about your position on the political spectrum than it does about mine.

I hope the Palestinian state would be both secular and preferably democratic, not a reactionary, far right Islamist thugocracy like you would get with Hamas. No one would be fucked over more by a Hamas-ruled Palestine than the Palestinians, particularly in the area of human rights.

Again, I’d like to stress there is a diversity of opinion in Israel and there is no one “Israeli” position, and ditto for Palestine. The Labour Party and Fatah are very different from the Likud Party and Hamas.

Indeed, Likud and Hamas almost kind of need each other to justify their excesses.

From a message board:

First black commenter:

“First off, I never thought that Arab muslims even considered, Malcolm & the nation of islam to be ‘true islam’  Second, it’s interesting/sad that the term ‘house negro’ has such universal appeal now.”

White commenter:
“Those camel jockeys better watch themselves!  Obama should respond by calling them sand n!ggers.  (I know, I know, horribly racist, but hey, fair is fair right?).”

Second black commenter:
“Irishgurl!!!”

Third black commenter:
“I doubt you’d be feeling that way if Obama called all white people a derogatory name had it been a white person that said the same thing.”

White commenter:
“I don’t really care.  I will not coddle terrorists.  Would the phrase “dune c o o n” be more appropriate?”

Third black commenter:
Um. No. It has nothing to do with coddling terrorists.

First black commenter:
“I like it!!!  I’ll try using it in a sentance today!  Sometimes we just need to put the PCness in the closet from time to time.”

In other words, becuase the white commenter is referring to Islamic terrorists, it’s alright to insult them by basically saying “They’re so despicable, they remind me of my general conception of black Americans”. And wouldn’t you know it, at least one black American on that thread agrees.

Maybe Obama, the redistributer, can sit down and reason with them…...right after he taxes us back into prosperity.

Look, give them the benefit of the doubt.

They’re just pissy because their favoured candidate didn’t win…

I hope we care about Afghanistan now, insomuch as we “care” by realizing that having an essentially lawless, failed state in one area of the world can have consequences far beyond its borders.

Both liberals and neocons favor intervention in scenarios like that. The difference is, the neocon response is “Go it alone and bomb ‘em to hell!”, the liberal response is “Work with the international community to restore order and law to that part of the world, with military force being only one tool of many to use”.

People on the far left or isolationist far right (think Buchanan and Ron Paul) say there’s “no difference”  between them only because it is in the interests of people on the political fringe to blur the lines of distinction.

Uh…that’s a lot of horseshit.

We never gave a damn about the Taliban.  I, and other feminists, tried to get our government officials to pay attention to what was happening in Afghanistan to absolutely no response.  No one gave a shit that women were being imprisoned, enslaved, and murdered.

What do you mean, we never gave a damn about the Taliban? We’d better give a good goddamn, because they’re slowly taking back Afghanistan from us! (I agree that Bush neglected the situation because he loved occupying Iraq so much.)

Afghanistan is where empires go do die, and so far, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that ours will be any different.

If anyone is interested, here’s a semi-long but extremely informative description of exactly what is going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and their region right now, how we got there, and how we could possibly rectify the situation without nuclear-armed Pakistan collapsing.

Maybe Obama, the redistributer, can sit down and reason with them…...right after he taxes us back into prosperity.

Bob Zimerman on 11/19

Sounds good.

One of the biggest issues with Afghanistan is we can’t drop our drug war ideology long enough to buy up the opium they grow until they can re-establish another form of more sustainable agriculture. Instead, we try to eradicate opium (an impossible tasks) and instead the Taliban gets funds from selling it on the black market.

You have to admit, it’s pretty funny that Bobby doesn’t care how many terrorist attacks we have to endure as long as his taxes don’t go up.  In a flood, he’d be clinging to the roof of his house fending off rescuers because that rescue effort is going to RAISE HIS TAXES!!!

Caren, after what you write, I’m puzzled as to what part of the selected quote you think is “horseshit.”  When I say “the real concern in Afghanistan has more to do with the Taliban and the conditions that make them popular,” I mean just that.  I’m not talking about the Bush administration’s specious justifications, I’m talking about the real facts on the ground.  So maybe I should have said “the real concern should be”.  My bad.  Anyway, for what it’s worth, the pro-Soviet regime that we helped to topple had promised to improve the lot of women under their rule.

I must take issue with this, though:

The US has never cared about Afghanistan, its people, or the Taliban, and we still don’t.

The US made efforts to deal with the Taliban before 9/11.  Some U.S. corporations were trying to negotiate the land rights to a natural gas pipeline that was to run through part of Afghanistan, and as the Taliban were in power at the time, etc.  It is arguable that the Taliban’s reluctance to make the land deal was at least as important a factor as their unwillingness to giftwrap al Qaeda for us in our decision to bomb the shit out them.  Also, we bribed the Taliban to shut down poppy/opium/heroin production in the areas they controlled, and it worked like a charm until we bombed the shit out of them after 9/11 (our ‘allies’, the so-called Northern Alliance, kept right on with opium production.  Now that the Taliban is in power in much of Afghanistan again, opium production has skyrocketed again.  Go figure.)

To Ben D.: Christ on a crutch, it’s difficult to play football with someone who moves the goalposts as much as you do.

I feel dumb today. Does “IIRC” mean something other than “if I recall correctly”?

No, that’s what it means and that’s how Ben used it. It’s Church Secretary, who apparently knows everything else, who appears to believe that IIRC is some sort of organization that was working in Afghanistan in the 80s.

I have so got these Al-Qaida guys figured out!

Sorry, I saw IIRC and was thinking ISI.  My bad.  But you’re right, Dweeze, I do know everything else.

See, some people miss the point.

Yes, everyone hates a mass murdering fuckhead. But a mass murdering fuckhead can still be sympathetic, if they make a concerted effort to be affably evil.

It’s one thing to blow up a civilian cruise ship. It’s quite another to beat an old man to death with a pool cue because he asked you to forgive his 3 year old grandson for making fun of your name Which kills more people? the former, obviously. But there’s a personal level of villainy. It’s what seperates the Count Draculas of the world from the Baron Harkonens

So yes, it is still kind of disappointing to find out that Al Qaida still has racial baggage instead of simply being a monolithic the faithful vs the godless infidels. In the same way it’d be kind of disappointing to learn Al Capone was a child molester.

Incidentally, welcome to TV Tropes. You didn’t really need to sleep tonight, did you?

Damn Karpad, I just wasted half an hour on TV Tropes, and it seemed like 2 mins! Addicting. Thanks… I think.

TV Tropes will ruin your life. You have been warned.

But doing what was best for the Afghan people would have helped us also, and that is the lesson to take away from it.

A couple of problems there… Firstly, “the Afghan people” are far from monolithic, so it’s impossible to say what would be “best” for them as a whole. Secondly, when exactly did the USA get the right to unilaterally decide what is in the best interests of people in other countries, and enforce that decision with military force?

Be careful, Dunc.  American Exceptionalism is apparently embraced by Democrats, too.

This is a Dick Cheney constructed forgery, a hoax. Maybe Fox News did it.

Working in the basement ‘Bat Cave’ under the VP’s pad, the minions of destruction are crafting every kind of sick bullshit they can.

How is Dick going to keep it secret once he’s out of officce? The secret back door?

Really, ‘house negro’ isn’t something that the brainiacs of Al-Qaida would use…

The US did more than try to deal with the Taliban pre-9/11. Bush PAID them millions of dollars to eliminate the drug trade. How did that work out…

And then there is this.

Could Bush be capable of murdering nearly 3,000 innocent people? Do you really have to ask that question after all he’s done?

That’s the flip side of American Exceptionalism, Pinky.  Some of us liberals may acknowledge that our government will pay, bribe, equip, or otherwise enable other governments to commit horrible mass crimes against their own people.  But those of us who entertain the possibility that our government would perpetrate such things against us (even if only by standing aside and doing nothing, which may have been the case on 9/11) are reflexively branded troublemakers, lunatics, or worse by other liberals.  The Republican base might have more than its share of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, but methinks the Democratic base is overpopulated with magical and wishful thinkers.  Cue the Hope™ and Change™ theme music…

Namely, is this really the best way for a terrorist operation to spend its time?  I mean, really?  Isn’t there a dank cave in Pakistan that could use some redecorating?  Get back to us when you plan on actual jihad and not these petty verbal snipes.  I hope they realize they just sound like a bunch of whiny ass Republicans.
Zifnab25

Do they have Cheetos?