« Inflammatory and irresponsible journalism | Main | Some uplifting news »
March 12, 2005
Al-Ghad inflammatory article translation
I still can't get over the inflammatory article I read yesterday. I e-mailed the editor-in-chief of the paper and complained. I encourage everyone else to do so as well. As somebody who has worked in different newsrooms over the last seven years, trust me when I tell you that feedback has an impact. Also, upon hubby's suggestion, I translated the article into English for those who couldn't read it in Arabic. Part of the article is below, the rest is in the extended section of this post.
Al-Banna family in al-Salt received greetings for son Raed's martyrdom in an Iraqi resistance operation
Al-Banna family in al-Salt organized a martyr's wedding yesterday for their son Raed Mansur al-Banna who blew himself up in an explosive-laden car that he was driving in Baghdad in al-Hilla on March 1.
The father of the martyr proudly received the well-wishers in the tribe's reception hall in central Jada in the center of the city of Salt. The story of Raed is similar to that of many youth from the city that left for Jihad across the globe. Raed's appointment with martyrdom came on March 1, when he blew himself up inside an explosive-laden car that he was driving in al-Hilla in Baghdad that resulted in the killing of over 133 people, the majority of whom were Americans.
Raed left his house three months prior to the incident and told his parents he was going to Saudi to perform al Umra (lesser Haj). Raed had just returned from Umra a few weeks before, as he went to take part in the anti-terrorism course organized by the Saudi government, according to his bother Ahmad Mansur al-Banna.
Raed, who was born in 1973, got his BA degree in Law from Muta University in 1995. During the events of September 11, 2001 he was working in California, said his brother. He noted that this incident [Sept. 11] changed him from a normal guy to a religiously devoted one, who committed himself to praying in the mosque while standing side by side with the Egyptian preacher Wajdi Ghanim in the mosques of California.
The news of his martyrdom came two days after he committed the martyrdom operation when someone claiming to be part of the guys of Aljazeera called Raed's brother and told him the news of the Raed's martyrdom along with another person from Jordan named Safwan al-Abbadi. He said Raed had been martyred two days previous in an operation executed by the Iraqi resistance.
The caller said that in order to prove that Raed did the operation he would tell his brother the names of Raed's relatives and that Raed had traveled to the US and UK and had earned a BA in Law and had worked as a lawyer for three years in Jordan. He also said that Raed had requested a payment of $100 be made to someone that had business dealings with him in the US. But the caller said that they should wait before they announced his martyrdom just to make sure.
Posted by Natasha at 03:36 AM in Media watch, The Disturbing | 
Permalink | 
Email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc76c53ef00d83422cabc53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Al-Ghad inflammatory article translation:
» The full translation of Al-Gahd article from Baghdad Dweller
I am not sure if this is translated or not but ...... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 12, 2005 6:37:01 PM
» Jordanian Media Inciting Martyrdom from Spartacus
Check out this interesting example of the delusional Arab press writing favorably about the Jordanian suicide bomber who murdered more than one hundred Iraqi civilians in Hilla last month. The murderer in question was evidently a 32 year old lawyer fro... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 14, 2005 2:41:15 PM
» Jordanian Suicide Bomber in Hilla from Terrorism Unveiled
Terrorism results exclusively from Poverty? Check out a picture of the house where the Hilla suicide bomber lived: This home is typical of the extravagance of the more upperclass citizens in Jordan. [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 14, 2005 5:28:37 PM
» More on Raed Mansour Albanna from Spartacus
I initially failed to make the connection between Raed al Banna, the middle-class, Jordanian suicide bomber profiled in the LAT last Saturday, and the tensions that erupted between Iraq and Jordan more than a year ago when his murderous attack [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 20, 2006 11:05:32 PM
Comments
Thanks Natasha for translating. NOw i can make an informed comment instead of just encouraging you to boycott them, because we all know how boycotting things is a real hoot for me, other than voting of course. I digress.
From a journalistic perspective, this story has no credibility what so ever. There are no direct quotes. The flow and style of the story looks like it was written for a gossip section, not hard news, even though the topic itself is hard news. I hope this paper's stories are not all written in this style, but then again im not sure what the style of journalism is when its written in arabic.
but like the conversation that was going on in the previous post, this is sad. I wonder how this guys mother actually feels, to lose her son in such a fashion.
Posted by: Linda | Mar 12, 2005 5:34:02 AM | Email this comment
Wow....how could anyone get married and then blow themselves up? even IF they think its for a good cause and they think they will go directly into paradise (heaven). I mean come onnnnn he is killing innocent people!
I reall yhate sucide bombers and ppl who think it's something to be proud of. There is no where in the Quran that says ppl must blow themselves up and kill. They think this is jihad?!
No wonder millions of ppl all over the world hate muslims!
Posted by: ananyah | Mar 12, 2005 9:23:00 AM | Email this comment
btw what paper was it?
Posted by: ananyah | Mar 12, 2005 9:24:25 AM | Email this comment
anannyah:
If he committed suicide because he is married..that would be understood !
Posted by: jareer | Mar 12, 2005 9:54:03 AM | Email this comment
Dear Ananyah,
First of all welcome to Mental Mayhem. The paper that published this article is Al-Ghad, ⇒http://www.alghad.jo⇐ which is a fairly new Jordanian daily.
Posted by: natasha | Mar 12, 2005 10:06:55 AM | Email this comment
That was a funny one jareer, only for a sec. though.
Posted by: Linda | Mar 12, 2005 11:43:38 AM | Email this comment
I am glad you laughed, Linda.
Posted by: jareer | Mar 12, 2005 12:25:37 PM | Email this comment
suicide and martyrdom...the lines between them are thin and the labeling depends on which side of the line you stand.
today wars are not like 200 or even 2000 years ago. wars have been disguised and dressed up. back then it was an invasion a battle a conquest, man to man, the loser, the victor and the spoils. today we have "liberation" and "freedom".
to arabs, to muslims, and to iraqis this is an occupation by a foreign military force. perhaps the strongest that has ever existed in human history. simply, when it comes to blowing yourself up to fight for your country it may be your only option considering you have no army and weapons are rare. your body and your spirit become your only weapon of defence.
Now, if this was 1995 and an iraqi blew himself up in the mall of america we can safely say this is not religiously perscribed in the quran. But when he does it on his own soil to liberate his own land, that's another story.
Posted by: Nas | Mar 12, 2005 2:03:27 PM | Email this comment
My take on suicide bombings...
http://the-dystopian.blogspot.com/2005/03/to-hell-with-suicide-bombers.html
Posted by: metalordie | Mar 12, 2005 2:13:26 PM | Email this comment
Well Nas, your points are certainly understood. But how do you analyze it when the person that blew themselves up was not an Iraqi and when they didn't blow up any members of the occupation but instead blew up Iraqis -- 133 of them -- whom I would suppose would be part of the population they are liberating from occupation.
I understand the problems with the occupation and the need for resistance. But it seems -- increasingly so in recent months -- that the resistance is Sunni Muslims blowing up Shia Muslims. And I'm not sure how many of the Sunni are even from Iraq but rather jihadis inspired on a mission.
Am I wrong in that assessment? Do you regard the actions taken in this case to fall on the acceptable side of the "resistance" line?
Posted by: Hubby | Mar 12, 2005 2:13:32 PM | Email this comment
Nas,
First, this guy is not even Iraqi, so your argument that he blew himself to liberate his country is bogus.
Second, how can you liberate a country by butchering 130 unarmed people for absolutely no reason. Or do you think that the fact that they were Shia justify their killing? This is outrageous and in no way can it be justified. You can not convince me of this one. It is sheer genocide.
Posted by: natasha | Mar 12, 2005 2:20:43 PM | Email this comment
Hubby, right on.
Exactly.
Not Iraqi Sunnis killing Shia. At least the leadership is not Iraqi. It is foreign-based. They want to make Iraq a battlefield.
The Iraqi resistance IS comprised of Sunnis and Shia working together. But you won't see that in the press because of charlatans and tyrants like AlZarqawi.
Posted by: metalordie | Mar 12, 2005 2:21:33 PM | Email this comment
The scourage of suicide bombings has brought the Arab and Muslim worlds down to their knees. Now, media pundits can easily point at Arabs and say, "look, they don't care about their children, they leave them and carry out suicide missions".
This heartlessness of Arabs and Muslims that western media pits into the stomach of the non-Arab reader is further extrapolated to mean "Arabs will throw their children at the enemy", "Arabs will rejoice once a member of the family is killed in a suicide mission", "Arabs have no culture, no humanity, no compassion if they so readily worship death".
Of course, we know the above to be false, but what does it matter what we believe. The destinies of the Middle East are not charted in the area itself but among the viewers watching a carnage unfold on television sets in New York, Miami, Tokyo, London, and Canberra.
Suicide bombings are a form of legitimate resistance we are told. But who tells us this? Those that would not dare get into a fist fight, let alone strap explosives around themselves...
For more read 'To hell with suicide bombers.'
Posted by: metalordie | Mar 12, 2005 2:27:36 PM | Email this comment
hubby, (lol thats a first), thanks for your reply.
Firstly, I cannot possibly say what category this falls under. Its a war, even worse: an occupation. The dust hasn't even settled and I feel with the media control on this all we hear are fragments. It's like being in plato's cave and deciphering shadows on the wall. I leave it to God to be the ultimate judge, i personally don't even like to label them. I tend to presume inocense till guilt is proven.
Secondly, as for those that were killed or injured. Again this is very hard to say. In many cases in Iraq you have some who are supporting the american occupation. Palestinians used to kill traitors who sold their lands to Zionists or acted as internal spies. Much of the same occurs here. Again, this I leave to God.
Third, it does not matter where he comes from. The man was a muslim and when a muslim land is occupied people will come from all over to fight the fight because religiously it is in their best interest. Similarily America will fight any fight as long as it's in their best interest, politically, financially, etc.
Lastly, Iraq is devided. You can almost take a ruler and cut up kurds, sunnis and shi3a. the differences are not religious. the kurds have wanted independence as the brutally abused little brother (minority). The Shi3a and the kurds have now seen an oppertunity to play the upper hand. They see America as unstopable and its a matter of 'if u cant beat'em then u might as well gain from them'. The sunnis however seem unwavering in this department, they see iraq's biggest problem, the one that must be solved before any nation can be built...is america.
Posted by: Nas | Mar 12, 2005 2:37:29 PM | Email this comment
natasha, i think my reply to hubby covers what u said. but not that im not attempting to convince you, im simply stating the obvious...its an occupation...there are lines drawn in the sand...occupation vs. resistance.
Posted by: Nas | Mar 12, 2005 2:40:13 PM | Email this comment
Ok. Its an occupation. So what ? Arab and Islamic countries once they were not so. They became so because of something called Islamic occupation- you call it "fotoo7aat". Should we as non moslems living in Islamic countries do the same and blow up ourselves because we are occupied. Stop this ridiculous justification for killing people. Martyrdom is not for such savage people. They are pure killers.
Posted by: jareer | Mar 12, 2005 3:32:45 PM | Email this comment
jareer i do not understand your reasoning. you said something about fotoo7aat i.e. conquests. what does that have to do with america being in iraq? the conquests were not imperialistic or to enslave people, it was simply the widening of the borders as was common centuries ago when no "real" nations existed in 20th century sense of the word. It was empires conquering lands. it would be great if the entire world was islamic, is this not the initial goal.
as for non-muslims living in islamic countries, you can fight for your land alongside the muslims in palestine or iraq, there is nothing wrong with that, it's even being pushed for by the christian clergy in palestine.
the problem people have with this is that it's religious and specifically because its islam. so ask yourself, what would americans do if they were occupied?
remember bush said once something like "their being occupied, heck i wouldn't like it if i were occupied"
lastly, it is a brutal thing to blow yourself up for a cause and instead of it being critisized by arabs we should wake up and realise just how bad it is. it deserves nothing less than the recognition that this is how bad it's gotten. this is how desperate these people are. do u think they would do this if they have actual weapons? of course not.
Posted by: Nas | Mar 12, 2005 3:56:04 PM | Email this comment
Likewise Nas, if I have to accept your way of argument, America is there to liberate. But I do not accept your reasoning either. Palestine was ruled by Christians when Omar came to conquer. Egypt, .. you name it. It was not no mans land as you wish it were.
Posted by: jareer | Mar 12, 2005 4:04:06 PM | Email this comment
Nas,
they do have actual weapons. they have bombs. why not attack the military? Why attack innocent people at a funeral of all places. It does not make sense.
I am against war and hate it. But i am not as pasafist. If you are attacked, you attack back. but you do it the way it is supposed to be done, not killing innocent civilians. Yes it is important to understand what drives a person to become a sucide bomber. By understanding it we can fight it, but the U.S. is failing at that unfortunately. With that said, when suicide bombings are done, not only is it sad, disgusting and deplorabel, but it also shows how weak the people who are doing it are.
Posted by: Linda | Mar 12, 2005 4:10:05 PM | Email this comment
BY THE WAY YOU GUYS, I READ METAL'S TAKE OF THIS ON HIS BLOGG. ITS REALLY GOOD. YOU GUYS SHOULD ALL READ IT.
Posted by: Linda | Mar 12, 2005 4:10:51 PM | Email this comment
i'm not saying it was no-mans land, what i am saying jareer is that the world was completly different back then. now you have globalization and internationalism and diplomacy, things that did not exist in those days. historically nations were conquered by other peoples for the sake of enslaving them just as imperialism did up to the 20th century. Islam did not come to enslave, it came to unite under a common umbrella. if the palestinians had been conquered i assure u it wud not have been a pretty sight, as we saw with the romans.
this is a different scenerio from america being in iraq or israel in palestine. both are occupying forces, no more no less.
Posted by: Nas | Mar 12, 2005 4:11:58 PM | Email this comment
Linda, the weapons are not enough. If you were to defend your very home at this very moment and could choose between a machine gun or killing yourself, what is your logical choice? apply the same results here.
As for who they kill, again it's very difficult to diffrentiate what the hell is going on. I am not justifying the killing for every single soul, i have no power in accountability. Like I told hubby, right now its a war with a media reporting countless inaccuracies.
I saw a tape once about Saddams military tactics in the gulf war. They would show you how he would have fake desert tanks as decoys to draw heat seeking missles and moments later CNN would report an american military successful operation. if a civilian was killed it was the iraqis who did it.
I'm sure there are many incidents when someone will go astray and kill innocent people. such fine example include bin laden, alqueda, and zarqawi's home-made chopping block. but all in all there are many reasons why some attacks occur and we, sitting miles away sipping our lattes, have no idea about it. we're told it was a funeral, we're told it was a police station, or we're told this and that. but by whom? and why?
Posted by: Nas | Mar 12, 2005 4:19:25 PM | Email this comment
Are you suggesting that given a choice for defending your home between a machine gun and killing yourself you'd choose the latter? I think, as suggested and argued a bit before, you'll find that suicide missions are generally a bad policy all around. The ideology and tactics of the Palestinians and their near half century of occupation should not be cast upon the Iraqis. I don't know the whole history of suicide missions, but it's been suggested here -- by an Iraqi -- that such missions are foreign.
And I don't buy the whole "we'll travel the world in search of Muslims under occupation and kill for them," particularly when that fight often results in two things: those that are supposed to be helped being killed "in the resistance" and then those occupying upping the ante, resulting in still more of those in need of help being killed. Everyone here, I believe, agrees, the best thing for Iraq is to get the Americans out sa7? Do you think continued unrest, attacks and so forth encourages such an action? Doesn't it just justify continued presence?
There is also an ebb and flow of eras in your argument. The ancient world is no longer, you are right. And equally true is the fact that wandering jihadis shouldn't be traveling the world trying to right the wrongs of people in nations they don't belong to, particularly if they are uninvited. And a great deal of the press in Iraq is saying, the resistance we speak of here, in this al-Ghad article, was not invited at all.
Posted by: Hubby | Mar 12, 2005 4:31:58 PM | Email this comment
How about Saddam killing moslems pre-American wars. Sudanese moslems killing moslems in Sodan. Iraki moslems against Iran in 70s and 80's. You do not seem to see when you kill each other in an unprecedented brutal way, even these days you still do not see shiites and sunnis killing each other. Its only when america attacks; and I am not justifying it either.
Posted by: Jareer | Mar 12, 2005 4:38:41 PM | Email this comment
Hubby, i think u misunderstood what i said to linda, im assuming the logical choice is that you will use the machine gun to protect your life, your family and your home until it is no longer viable to do so.
Iraq and Palestine are part of the same problem. They are both arab and muslim nations, both historically holy, and both occupied by foreign forces. The fight is the same.
Now as for "travel the world" part. This tends to sidetrack to the alqueda mentality. But realistically this is the Islamic duty, to fight for their brothers and sisters when they are occupied. The crusades is one analogy, but perhaps a tad outdated for this discussion.
Iraqis that get killed in the process of the resistance are bystandards and their death is the equivelent of a martyr. Again, i refrain from calling on specific incidents as neither of us has the adequate knowledge to pass judgement.
sa7, everyone agrees on america's departure. do i think continued unrest will solve it? who knows. the vietnamese brought their nation to the brink of destruction before the americans left, and they were well funded. The truth is america is not leaving, it has no intention to leave with or without the resistance. That was clear to even the americans from day 1. They are going in to implement their agenda and thats that. if the resistance put up its arms and said u know what, we'll stop if you promise to leave.
what would america's next move be? withdrawl does not come to mind.
as for invitations, it's not really a party, they dont have to send an rsvp to fight. yes some are saying they wern't, i've read some articles as well. Again, who is saying this? who is writing this? The shi3a mahdi army in 2003 called for muslims from all over to come. There have been numerous call to arms since day 1.
I just want to make something clear to everyone, i am speaking in generalities, we're not sitting down here to analyze each attack one by one. None of us has the accurate information on what's going on, but we can conclude the obvious...newton's 3rd law...to every action there is an equal and proportionate reaction...
occupation..........resistance
Posted by: Nas | Mar 12, 2005 4:49:19 PM | Email this comment
![[ Registered ]](/Images/Buttons/diarist.gif "[ Registered Diarist ]"){kind=small}
