Laura Mansfield American Arabic Translator

[Jenn! 918]

Fixed your link...

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

Fixed your link...

how dd you do that hahaha

[jpaula 20]

Fixed your link...

how dd you do that hahaha

It is interesting, with info that can be found many other places as well. But, it does not explain the history of the GSPC. This is often left out of the US and European news stories (not so much the French). We want to lump any terrorist action under the Al Qaeda umbrella, and Al Qaead would like to take as much credit as they can gather, but we are buying their advertising too easily. (For example, I have seen it reported repeatedly that two French and an Italian were killed in the last attack which is Al Qaeda's claim when in fact the French, Italian and five Algerians were injured, but not killed. Why are we taking Al Qaeda's exaggerated self-inflated claims as fact?).

The GSPC, before a post 9/11 name change to Al Qaead in the Islamic Maghreb, was an Algeria-based terrorist organization acting within Algeria and the region. Its newly strengthened relationship with Al Qaeda certainly means there is some foreign involvement and bound to be more, but it does not mean there is not Algerian leadership and that this organization is not Algeria-based. One of Al Qaeda' strengths is its appeal to far flung local movements and the extent to which it has been able to harness local conflict and redirct it to larger strategic goals. But, it is able to do so in places like Algeria because there are local organizations already there. If we really want to understand this global movement we are going to have to understand it also at the local level. What are the local politics and how are they linked to the global? These are not easy questions to answer and I am thus rather leary of simple answers.

I would really like to think, as I assume would the overwhelming majority of Algerians, that this is just a foreign fight brought to Algerian soil, soil that is already blood stained enough and deserves a respite. But, I think we have to recognize the home-grown part of this movement. Terrorism has been and continues to be one horrific aspect of Algeria's history. Al Qaeda did not introduce the idea.

I would guess that the population of this board that wants to look in-depth at Algerian history is pretty small, but if you do, I suggest doing some research in French and looking up the Algerian newspapers. There is some stuff out there about the GSPC in English, but it is pretty scant. Here is one piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100402006.html

Which brings this all very off topic--sorry.

[PetraPerson101 0]

i'm just trying to figure out why those links are labeled "trash" and it appears that it's just due to you disagreeing with what she said because it was negative.

so next question - do you think the story in that one link happened or not?

Sorry bout my delay there - I've been uberbusy.

But, here's my reasoning. First, I'd like to think that I've got a somewhat "unbiased" view of things. I like to look at all sides, understand what's going on ... then make my conclusions. I don't hop on the bandwagon.

For the whole civil liberty things going on, truly, I don't think it's Anti-Islam at all. I'd go into detail -but- that's for another time, another place.

What my basis is, is this lady's some kind of neocon person. Not even a Republican, but one of these loons who've been, sadly, dominating Washington for the past 7 years.

Next off, the article details harassment & racism + some people who decided to "have fun with it" rather than get upset. What they did was mean, but they didn't do anything wrong - cause harm - or express hatred towards decent Americans. They expressed their discontent with racists.

For crying out loud .. maybe someone got sick on the plane and doesn't want to upset the passengers with the sound of his vomiting? I've heard plenty of stories about Hispanic men with beards getting thrown off the plane for looking Arab. If I did the same thing that those guys did, nobody would think twice. Why? Anyone know what a Syrian or a Turk looks like? Completely European looking - light skin & caucasian features. Ooh, Laura Mansfield can say "OH MY GOD THEY LOOK LIKE US!" ( A friend of my family's was *TOLD THAT* "Wow, you look like us." by a TSA person. That's pure racism. )

Lastly, I know WND (World net daily). That's a conservative ultra-right-wing biased publication, thus, totally unreliable. I'd take FOX NEWS' word before I trusted WND for the time of day.

Ann Coulter ads? No reputable publication would have that.

Last off - the same page has "Gas and Oil for Israel" on it. That is potentially offensive or inflamatory towards the majority of Arabs, due to what is going on with Lebanon and the Palestinans.

But - this is what you want it to be. You can be paranoid about things, and never have a day of peace, or you can go about with your life. I could say in Jordan, "Hey look! All of the wooden doors have crosses on them! The christians are trying to convert us all! EVERYBODY PANIC!" - but, I know better. I'd like to think & hope people know better too.

Present real proof, not paranoia. That lady's just some paranoid freak who happens to know some Arabic.

Edited September 24, 2007 by KyanWan

[PetraPerson101 0]

Re-read that article because I thought I missed something. Now then. Let me point something out I gleaned from my re-reading.

In the article, you see this at the very end: "While in the previous section, the men had quoted over and over again sura from the Quran calling for violent jihad, the women's session focused on the "gentler" side of Islam."

This is an important point, literally, a key to her argument. Why didn't she mention it in the beginning of the report - where she is in this imaginary session? Why? Because most likely it never happened. She didn't even proofread her article! OMG! I put more effort into my e-mails and forum posts than that! IF I missed an important point (like these last 3 sentences) I'd edit and put them in!!!

If you're an Arab/Muslim - and you're in the USA - you're as much of an *enemy* to those whacked-out people ... as any old American - wether they're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, pagan, or atheist. They make no differentation. If they can kill Muslim Iraqis with the ease that they do - then they most certainly have no problem with killing an American Muslim.

---

Plus, for the Iraq issue ... Saddam was fighting with Saudi Arabia. He called the monarchy invalid.

Why did the United States need to get involved in Saudi Arabia's affairs? This gassing of Kurds & Iraqi villages wasn't a problem when it happened. Why was it such a problem after Saddam threatened the Saudi royals? Search for "bush and saudi royal family" on google image search. You'll see why the USA fought with Saudi Arabia's enemy (Saddam).

I'll close my argument with this statement:

If you can find this same news story by Laura Mansfield covered by NPR ( www.npr.org ), then I will believe it - no questions asked.

NPR is real, unbiased news. It's one of the only sources I'll trust.

Edited September 24, 2007 by KyanWan

[Ban Hammer 13,669]

NPR is real, unbiased news. It's one of the only sources I'll trust.

[/b]

and npr has a left slant to it

[mybackpages 0]

NPR is real, unbiased news. It's one of the only sources I'll trust.

[/b]

and npr has a left slant to it

maybe, but they had one of the largest drums beating in support for hte war in Iraq. Anne Gerrels was one of the hugest supporters of the war on NPR. Not sounding so lefty to me.

[sandinista! 1,816]

NPR is real, unbiased news. It's one of the only sources I'll trust.

[/b]

and npr has a left slant to it

maybe, but they had one of the largest drums beating in support for hte war in Iraq. Anne Gerrels was one of the hugest supporters of the war on NPR. Not sounding so lefty to me.

and then there's very righty 'paleocons' like pat buchanan, or ron paul, who never ever supported the war and think interventionist foreign policy will be the end of us. the issue doesn't fall neatly into a 'left thinks one way, right thinks another'.

[Ban Hammer 13,669]

NPR is real, unbiased news. It's one of the only sources I'll trust.

[/b]

and npr has a left slant to it

maybe, but they had one of the largest drums beating in support for hte war in Iraq. Anne Gerrels was one of the hugest supporters of the war on NPR. Not sounding so lefty to me.

maybe so, i don't listen to npr anymore. did once or twice, it pissed me off.

[sara535 15]

well surely by now everyone realizes there is no such thing as UNbiased media coverage. EVERYONE has an angle and an axe to grind. I find the best approach is to try to get info from a variety of sources and use my own filter.

[jpaula 20]

well surely by now everyone realizes there is no such thing as UNbiased media coverage. EVERYONE has an angle and an axe to grind. I find the best approach is to try to get info from a variety of sources and use my own filter.

Absolutely. And to make sure you are reading critically, even when reading someone you agree with. Be aware of how they gathered facts, which they chose to highlight, when they present opinion as fact. Look at the logic (or lack thereof) of how conclusions are drawn from presented facts.

I think we live in a political culture where we think a valid argument consists of picking the facts that back our opinion and then shouting over the others. I see this in students' papers all the time--line up a list of facts and other peoples' opinions that supports your opinion so the "evidence" is overwhelming. This is NOT analysis. Analysis is looking at all the facts you can find, weighing possible explanations and arguing why one explanation is better than the others. It also acknowledges the limits of the explanation.

Were Laura Mansfield to stick to the honest gathering of fact, I would say she is one piece to the puzzle. But, she has very selective facts. It is in her analysis of these facts that she becomes absurd. Leave aside her conclusions, look at her translations, take the valid ones as PART of a larger picture. That is the best way I can think to deal with any slanted analysis.

We can all go out and search for tidbits that support our prejudices, our fears, our hates, our loves, our suspicions, our heart-felt convictions. But, this is not looking at things in totality.

Incidentally, one of the hard things, and one of the more beautiful things, about being in a bi-cultural marriage, is that you are forced to consider things from another perspective all the time. I think we have all had this experience personally and are thus a pretty good group to be able to do it analytically as well.

[PetraPerson101 0]

NPR is real, unbiased news. It's one of the only sources I'll trust.

[/b]

and npr has a left slant to it

maybe, but they had one of the largest drums beating in support for hte war in Iraq. Anne Gerrels was one of the hugest supporters of the war on NPR. Not sounding so lefty to me.

maybe so, i don't listen to npr anymore. did once or twice, it pissed me off.

http://www.wnpr.org/RadioMiddleton.asp

I never said they didn't have some annoying programs on npr.

But, they're the closest I've heard to real balance. They have the backbone to report unpopular stuff - and take unpopular positions. I give em credit.

But anyways, back to the point. When you take a very hard bias in your articles/opinions/writings - you discredit yourself.

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

NPR is real, unbiased news. It's one of the only sources I'll trust.

[/b]

and npr has a left slant to it

maybe, but they had one of the largest drums beating in support for hte war in Iraq. Anne Gerrels was one of the hugest supporters of the war on NPR. Not sounding so lefty to me.

maybe so, i don't listen to npr anymore. did once or twice, it pissed me off.

http://www.wnpr.org/RadioMiddleton.asp

I never said they didn't have some annoying programs on npr.

But, they're the closest I've heard to real balance. They have the backbone to report unpopular stuff - and take unpopular positions. I give em credit.

But anyways, back to the point. When you take a very hard bias in your articles/opinions/writings - you discredit yourself.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[morocco4ever 63]

If people dedicate their lives looking for evil they will find it, in every culture.

This kind of reminds me of a large group of men that I know. They spew and spout that all american women are whores and trash. But you find them every weekend at the clubs hitting on drunken women. Do I see any of these men at any areas that family gather? Parks, museums, or the like? No wonder they think this about american women, they find what they look for.

Do you see any correlation here?