How to Speak Arabic

I'm reading The Arab Mind by Raphael Patia. There are numerous wonderful quotes. Here's one:

[A] simple assent [saying yes] from an Arab can be, for him, nothing more than a polite form of evasion, while the same word may mean for his English interlocutor a definite, positive commitment....

A simple "Yes" or "No" is, for the English speaker, a definitive statement. His Arabic interlocutor, however, conditioned as he is by the exaggeration and overassertion that are the rule in his own mother tongue, is simply incapable or understanding such brief and simple statements in the same sense. For him, "Yes" only means "Perhaps." ("No" has for the Arab a similarly indefinite meaning.)

Only if the English speaker had said: "Yes, I am telling you definately, yes; I assure you positively and emphatically, yes; my answer is irrevocably and permanently yes!" would the Arab have got the point that what the English speaker really meant was "Yes."

Terrorist or Soldiers

Part of our problem in this war is our terminology. Our war isn't against "terror" per se. Our war is against men with a particular ideology, a virulant version of Islam. We are incensed with their attacking civilians and non-combatants.

In the past terrorism was used to describe criminal acts that were more political than criminal, for example kidnappings and hijackings. The word was coined to distinguish the acts from ordinary crime. It wasn't an ordinary crime nor was it war.

The world has changed. This is no longer the case. We are now at war. The "terrorists" are soldiers. And the suicide bombers are one of their versions of special forces going on brave missions to disrupt the ability of their enemy to fight them.

I'm certainly not condoning nor legitimizing the actions of the Christmas Day bomber nor others of his ilk. I want this war to be prosecuted as the war it is. The people trying to kill us need to be hunted down and killed before they kill us. Such is the nature of war.

One way to combat the vileness of mirandizing enemy soldiers is by actually calling these men soldiers. They're still the same vile scumbags who think that killing innocent people going home after a day's work are legitimate targets but let's call them what they are: men fighting for their cause the best way they know how. The fact that we despise their cause and have contempt for their methods does not change the fact.

Fort Hood Shooting

The question of the day seems to be: was this a political act or did this person snap. We can never know his true motivation, all we can do is to look at the evidence and make up our mind from that. Sometimes there is very little evidence and we really cannot formulate a strong opinion regarding a person's motivation; other times there is a fair deal of information. This time we have a fair deal of information.

First and foremost this was a political act. Shouting "Allah Akbar" and shooting military personnel is a political act. Communicating with radical imams (unless done undercover) certainly shows a particular mindset. In the same way if a white man lynches a black man and can be linked to a KKK recruiter it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that his actions were based out of racial hatred.

Secondly he did snap. It seems that he was conflicted about his role in the US military and his identity as a Muslim. This being the case, if he was a reasonable man, he should have resigned his commission. The fact that he did not -- and let's face it the military is not a place where one accrues riches -- shows that there is much more to the story.

Some people argue that there was no political component to this story that the poor man absorbed so many horror stories from his patients that when it was his turn to go abroad he simply couldn't take it. I don't buy this. He could have resigned his commission and taken a civilian job. Something compelled him to stay and I don't think it was duty to country and corps.

Talking with Terrorists

Obama and the Democrats should not have reacted so negatively to Bush's comments about talking with terrorist states and organizations. This should not be an issue. Does anyone seriously believe that the US government has not been in contact with Iran and Hamas? Does anyone believe that the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations were not in contact with the Chinese government? Who believes that the first talks between the United States and China was when Nixon traveled there? The issue here is not back room discussions; the issue is with state visits. The only outcome of state visits is prestige being conferred upon despicable people and their organizations. It must be understood that there are situations where talking will not solve the problem, where there can be no common ground.

Say you were the mayor of a town and the KKK was gathering their forces saying that they would kill all the Niggers in the town. What sort of common ground can their be? What sort of compromise? Kill only half the Niggers in town? Insist that the KKK refrain from using the n-word and call all the black folks African-Americans or People of Color while they're being lynched?

No the only communication you could, or should, have with them is "Come here with that shit and we're going to kill you like the fucking rabid dogs you are."