Fighting terrorism with comics in Germany

This is the cover of the comic book commissioned
by the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia to
teach children about Islamism and terrorism. In
the middle is Murat, a troubled Turkish youth, who
gets caught up in the machinations of Harun, a boy
who has been radicalized by a local man preaching
Jihad.

honestly, i don't have an opinion one way or the other on this, but i have to say, i'm impressed with the creativity and the sincere attempt to put some constructive stuff out there in kid-friendly style that doesn't demonize or preach...

The Interior Ministry of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia is taking a new tack in the fight against homegrown terrorism. It's using a comic book -- complete with colorful images and "youthful" language -- to battle nasty jihadism.

[...]

[T]o be fair, the story is not half-bad, and it's pretty well put together.

Andi has all the accoutrements needed to mark him as your run-o-the-mill hipster kid -- baseball cap, hoodie and messy hair -- and he has a Turkish girlfriend, Ayshe. Her brother -- and Andi's buddy -- Murat, is going through a bit of a crisis because he can't find a position as an apprentice, and he blames his rejection letters on xenophobia. That makes Murat the perfect prey for the strange new kid on the playground, Harun, with his serious demeanor and steadfast belief in what he's been fed from Islamists. Harun, in turn, beats it into Murat's head that he will be discriminated against because of his religion.

[...]

Of course, after 38 pages, there is the inevitable happy ending: Murat transforms himself from a potential public enemy number one back into a cheerful chap. And, joy upon joy, an apprenticeship position appears out of nowhere, just to hammer home the moral of the story a little bit further.

[...]

One thing is for sure: the officials have given it a good shot. The story is a bit too short and sweet but, at the same time, it's half-way believable because you can see that a lot of the details are a fairly faithful reflection of reality.

definitely an "a" for effort and at least trying to get past stereotypes... maybe the u.s. will take lessons... < scratches chin > nah...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Opus: Lola Granola as "Fatima Struggle"

at one point a few months ago, jim hinted around that opus might make a regular sunday feature... hey...! why not...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Serious delusion, willingly perpetuated, deliberately perpetrated

read this carefully...

I. Our Rules / Their Rules
Several governments have defeated Islamic insurgencies, but usually only after about ten years, and adopting policies of summary executions and carpet bombing or shelling.

The Algerians in the 1990s finally stopped the so-called Islamic Salvation Army. The Russians decimated Chechnyan separatists. Syria’s Hafez al-Assad brutally exterminated several groups loosely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, most infamously by the thousands at the town of Hama.

But so far, no recent military has succeeded in defeating a radical Muslim terrorist insurgency, while subject to a constitutional government and an absolutely free media. In this regard, the United States — given its position as the world’s only superpower and recognized as the most sensitive of all countries to easy criticism — is especially at a military disadvantage.

Witness Guantanamo Bay that is demonized worldwide as the new Stalag or Gulag, when, in fact, it is the most humane detention center of jailed Muslim terrorists in the world.

Abu Ghraib was reprehensible for its sexual roguery and gratuitous humiliation, but the real military problem of that prison has been the serial release, not American mistreatment, of Islamic murderers. In Iraq, then, the question arises — can a liberal Western government defeat a barbarous Islamist terrorist insurgency while under constant audit — and remaining true to its own democratic principles?

have you absorbed all that...? good... now try this...

II. Fighting For Democracy?
The present war, however, is again qualitatively different: We are not seeking to quell the violence in Iraq or Afghanistan by the imposition or use of a brute. Instead we expend blood and treasure in the hopes that a consensual government can fight as well as a dictatorship — while at the same time ensuring freedom for its people.

So in Iraq, not only are we waging a war according to American rules of engagement, but for the idea of constitutional government run by a poor, deeply traditional, tribal, and often religiously fundamentalist population.

General Petraeus knows that Iraq Security Forces can get information out of detained terrorists much easier than we can. But he also accepts that winking at systematic torture would be at odds with his directive to protect and promote constitutional government.

okay... but, wait... he ain't finished yet...

III. War-loving Republicans?
There is yet a third anomaly: We are presently fighting two simultaneous wars under a conservative Republican administration. And that too is fairly rare in the last 100 years, and far more challenging. [...] Apparently, the intelligentsia and media felt that no liberal Democrat could possibly have preferred war, and had only fought when forced to — despite the use of Democratic preemption in a variety of instances.

and STILL, he's not finished...

IV. From YouTube to Cingular

[...]

Even during the Serbian bombing a mere decade ago, poor civilians on the ground were not able to easily email, or cell phone daily reports, or post videos on the Internet.

But now an errant bomb or single rogue jailer in Abu Ghraib will be blared live — in raw and unedited fashion without much of a context — to a housewife in Frankfurt or a farmer in Anatolia. Any single untoward incident can splash across the computer screens of billions, and serve as an instant referendum on the service of tens of thousands of American soldiers.

The result is that U.S. military officials recognize that any possible strike on the Syria border would be broadcast worldwide as carpet bombing of a wedding party or tribal reunion, while the enemy’s mass beheadings and torture will often go unreported.

do you see where this is all headed...?

V. The Oil Bogeyman
American military options in the Middle East are also circumscribed by a global oil market — even more so than during the Cold War fear of a counter-reaction from the Soviet Union. We are in an era of seemingly perpetual petroleum scarcity, one far worse even than the oil boycotts of old that were shortages by intent and directed solely at the West.

[...]

Increasingly what follows will be a liberal Western superpower, adopting rules of engagement that reflect its own idealism fighting against a primordial terrorists, in pursuit of democratic reform — sometimes under conservative Republican administrations vulnerable to charges of militarism, while being scrutinized by a global media eager for signs of either American hypocrisy or weakness, and a world jittery over world petroleum prices.

Should Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker stabilize Iraq, it will demonstrate that the United States, under the most impossible of conditions, can still defeat Islamic terrorism while fostering constitutional reform that improves the security of the region and the world at large — and due so irrespective of a hostile world media and partisan politicking at home.

But if they cannot?

The ultimate irony: The seventh-century terrorists win — and those who habitually demonized American military operations will themselves lose as well.

you know what's so horribly despicable about this twisted line of reasoning...? it allows for no possibility that the motives of the united states are anything but pure... god, how i would like to believe that... i DID believe that for a good portion of my life... just like everyone else, i was raised to believe in the myth of my country... what i now know is that the united states, founded on the most enlightened principles of any country in the world, has had those principles hijacked by people so greedy for money and power that they are willing to do literally anything to get them... victor davis hanson is seriously deluded and those who will rally around his words are as well...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A headline that says it all

from today's wapo roundup of the nation's op-ed pages...

Today's Hot Topic: Rebooting the War on Terror

and just in case you had any doubt about what they might mean by that, here's the paragraph that 'splains it all...

War on Terror: After the release of the new National Intelligence Estimate on terror threats this week, the WaPo argues that the most urgent decision to be made is what to do about al-Qaeda's sanctuary in Pakistan. "If Pakistani forces cannot -- or will not -- eliminate the sanctuary, President Bush must order targeted strikes or covert actions by American forces, as he has done several times in recent years," the editors write ... the LAT argues that the report should reinvigorate Americans' interest in the war on terror. "The passage of time without another terrorist outrage on American soil has inspired complacency about continuing dangers and a reluctance to address issues -- such as the proper balance between liberty and security in an age of terror -- that are certain to recur," the editors write ... the WSJ argues that the report is "a stark reminder that al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups continue to pose an urgent threat to our security, and that 9/11 was not the terrorist one-off that some liberals wish it were so they can switch the subject to global warming and after-school programs."

it's hard to believe that these major media outlets are, once again, playing willing pawns to bushco fear-mongering... just look at the verbiage...

must order targeted strikes or covert actions

well, hey...! while we're at it, let's not stop with pakistan... we've got all that military firepower just sitting around in the gulf, let's go for a two-fer and bomb iran at the same time...

and these...

• reinvigorate Americans' interest in the war on terror

• terrorist outrage on American soil

• continuing dangers ... that are certain to recur

• stark reminder

• continue to pose an urgent threat

• 9/11 not the terrorist one-off"

and what would fear-mongering be without a wsj dig at the al qaeda-loving, dirty fucking hippie liberals...

so they can switch the subject to global warming and after-school programs

after all that's been revealed, discussed and written about, to still adopt these fear-mongering positions when it's patently clear that the "war on terror" has been the biggest manipulation of average citizens in modern history, is totally baffling to me... the only thing i can possibly imagine is that we're being set up for another terrorist attack so that these fine people can then say, "well, we told you so..."

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

It ain't al-Qaeda, people, it's pissed-off Muslims like Bilal Abdullah

from today's la times...

British suspect's beliefs drove him

Bilal Abdullah was an angry militant Islamist long before he became a doctor in Britain or a chief suspect in last week's attempted car bombings in London and Glasgow, according to acquaintances.

The Iraqi doctor spoke fluent English, studied for his British medical exams in Cambridge and worked part time at a local Staples office supply store, according to a friend from those days in 2004 and 2005.

Abdullah also praised former Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, and kept his group's videos showing beheadings and assaults. He cheered the killing of U.S. and British troops, and wanted to see a strict Islamic government in Iraq, as well as Islamic dominance around the world.

the next time you hear bush use al-qaeda in every other sentence of a speech, keep the following in mind...

British security officials say no direct links to Al Qaeda have yet been found, and terrorism experts are skeptical that there is one. Abdel Bari Atwan, author of "The Secret History of Al Qaeda," noted in an interview Wednesday that Al Qaeda operations in London, Bali and Madrid all were deadly accurate, whereas last week's attacks were rudimentary and unsuccessful.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq is very experienced. They manufacture car bombs every day. They know how to detonate bombs, where to park them, how to select targets," said Atwan, who is editor of the London-based Al Quds al Arabi newspaper.

this is what bushco doesn't want us talking about... there's a ton of pissed-off muslims out there and the more we keep trying to kick their collective asses, the more pissed-off they're gonna be, and the more of those now in the peaceful mainstream are going to start feeling the same way... bush and his buddy, tony, succeeded in making the war on terrorism into a war on al-qaeda, a war which they then conflated with islam...

just as an interesting speculation, what if terrorists, instead of being defined as radical islamists working for al-qaeda, were defined as radical christians who believe in acting out their beliefs by bombing (or attempting to bomb) abortion clinics, and murdering physicians who perform abortions...? what if all christianity got lumped in with those people...? every day, more and more christians would become radicalized and feel it necessary to take strong steps to protect their cherished beliefs... let's face it, if you become convinced that powerful forces are out to obliterate the fundamental principles you live by, along with your very identity as a person, anger and rage is not an irrational response...

we don't have to look very hard to find other examples of religions and cultures that became radicalized under threat of extinction: the protestant-catholic conflict in northern ireland, the christian-muslim bloodbaths in the balkans, the basque-spanish situation in spain, and, of course, israel and palestine, are some of the most recent, and recorded history is littered with others... when people feel their beliefs and entire way of life are under attack, they get angry and fight back... it's bad enough that the u.s. wants to control all the world's energy resources and feels justified using military power to get them, it's vastly much worse when that agenda gets wrapped in religious ideology and painted as a global struggle of christianity vs. islam...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The WaPo hits another one out of the park in the World Series of context-free journalism

unfriggingly believable... the sons-of-bitches write a story on bush's appointment of a new U.S. representative to the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, and then don't even have the good grace to MENTION that bush nominated karen hughes for a virtually identical purpose in march 2005, using almost identical language... and, in the final insult to our intelligence, they don't even BOTHER to reference their own article...

here's the story from today's edition...

President Bush announced plans yesterday to appoint an envoy to an organization of Islamic nations with the intention of improving the battered image of the United States in the Muslim world.

Speaking at the rededication of the half-century-old Islamic Center in Washington, Bush said the new U.S. representative to the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference "will listen to and learn from the representatives from Muslim states and will share with them America's views and values."

"This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship," said Bush, who has not yet named anyone to the job.

[...]

The decision to send an envoy to the group comes at a time when the image of the United States is flagging in many corners of the globe and particularly in the Muslim world. A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project released yesterday found that unfavorable views of the United States outweighed favorable views by lopsided margins in several predominantly Muslim nations that are U.S. allies, including Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.

but no mention whatsoever of THIS story from the march 12, 2005 edition...

Former White House counselor Karen P. Hughes will take over the Bush administration's troubled public diplomacy effort intended to burnish the U.S. image abroad, particularly in the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism has fueled extremist groups and terrorism, a senior administration official said yesterday.

Hughes, 48, who has been one of President Bush's closest advisers since his tenure as Texas governor, plans to return to Washington soon to rejoin the president's team after a three-year absence and set up shop at the State Department, where she will work with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reinvigorate the campaign for hearts and minds overseas.

Hughes will take over an operation that has been criticized as lackluster by many analysts and, privately, even by some administration officials, despite its mission of waging a war of ideas against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist organizations.

[...]

Through exchange programs, foreign language media and other initiatives, the public diplomacy campaign aims to promote American values of democracy, tolerance and pluralism abroad while combating negative images propagated in many parts of the world.

just for giggles and grins, let's compare phraseology...

June 2007
...improving the battered image of the United States in the Muslim world

March 2005
...intended to burnish the U.S. image abroad, particularly in the Muslim world

June 2007
...listen to and learn from the representatives from Muslim states and will share with them America's views and values

March 2005
...promote American values of democracy, tolerance and pluralism abroad

June 2007
...unfavorable views of the United States outweighed favorable views by lopsided margins in several predominantly Muslim nations that are U.S. allies

March 2005
...combating negative images propagated in many parts of the world

June 2007
...our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship

March 2005
...reinvigorate the campaign for hearts and minds overseas

something else not mentioned... one month after her senate confirmation in september 2005, here's a review of karen's first trip in her new capacity...

Bush confidante Karen Hughes , the newly appointed, "relentlessly upbeat" Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, has returned from her recent five-day mission to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Marketed as a "listening tour," Hurricane Karen's foray into the volatile region turned into a near feeding frenzy directed at her by the western media, despite the State Department's best efforts to win over the press —which included providing seats to 16 reporters aboard the Under Secretary's Air Force jet.

Hughes's PR failure with her home media would be of little importance if it did not lead to a simple but troubling question: If the administration's Under Secretary in a key foreign policy post can't demonstrate to western reporters that she's a serious professional, how will she ever be able to convince the rest of the world, so doubtful about the Bush administration's intentions and actions, that her official assignment—winning hearts and minds abroad—is worth any attention or respect?

we are truly living in a time-warped, alternate universe...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Very cool...! Ron Paul prepares a reading list for Rudy

it's one thing to say something, be attacked for it, and then refute the attack... it's another thing entirely to refute the attack AND provide a solid, irrefutable stack of reading material to back up your original statement...

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East," Andy Sullivan reports for Reuters. "I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term Texas congressman said as he stood behind a stack of books that included the report by the commission that examined the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

[...]

The "Reading for Rudy" list includes Chalmers Johnson's Blowback, Robert A. Pape's Dying to Win, and Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris, along with the 9-11 Commission Report.

paul also prepared brief excerpts from each as a kind of "executive summary", or, as paul termed it, "cliff's notes", in case rudy found himself short of time...

if i was in rudy's shoes, i would be thoroughly humiliated, but i would imagine his ego probably prevents him from even recognizing the depth of the insult... maybe paul could provide some humility guidelines to go along with the books and the cliff's notes...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments