"On NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to explain why President George W. Bush keeps harping on al Qaeda while discussing the insurgency in Iraq."
What does the word "Al-Qaeda" mean ? In Arabic, "Al-Qaeda" has a different meanings, among them “Base", "Ground", "Norm", "Rule", "Fundament", "Grammar". The exact meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used. It depends on the word which follows “Al-Qaeda” in the sentence. "Qawa'ad Askaria" is an Army Base, "Qawa'ad Lugha" stands for Grammar Rules (the Bases of Grammar).
"Qa'ada" is the infinitive of the verb "to sit". "Ma-Qa'ad" is a chair. "Al-Qaeda" is the base or fundament of something. "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa'ada” which mean “to sit”, pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda".
Those who founded the glorious "International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda, probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language to know that by using this name for their organization, they risked becoming the laughing stock of everybody who speaks the Arabic "public" language.
From the reading I have done I would suggest that back in the early 1970's is when the CIA started thinking about using the Mujahadeen (MAK) to destabilize the Soviet Union. Remember that George H.W. Bush led the CIA around 1976, during this period. It was Jimmy Carter who gave the go-ahead for the operation in 1979. The "al-Qaeda" team was really a finance arm for the Afghan rebellion. They didn't even call themselves "al-Qaeda", it was the CIA who took the name off a filing cabinet because it was something Bin Laden used to refer as "the base" one time.
Bin Laden wished to extend the conflict to nonmilitary operations in other parts of the world after the costly Afghan war ending in 1989. After the Soviet union withdrew from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia, while training operations in Afghanistan continued. (mind you he returned to Saudi Arabia, which is where he was based). After careful deliberation the Saudi Monarch (King Fahd) opted to allow United States (and coalition forces) to protect his country. Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed; allowing infidels to set foot on the soil of the land of the two mosques.
From here on is when Bin Laden does a lot of questionable stuff, and returned to Afghanistan and hooked up with the Taliban in roughly 1991.
As you can see there is a lot of history of which could easily be written into a book (which I am sure there are many). The bottom line is that when anyone refers to Al-Qaeda today, keep in mind they are talking about a group culled together using the CIA and US funds. This is most upsetting to me, as nobody in the government talks about this now, they don't talk about how US foreign policy created most all these situations we have to live through. It is our money being spent by warlords, gangs, and intelligence groups worldwide to further opium and wars. Who benefits? The corporations who make war happen, and the oil profiteers. Don't forget that the Bush family has a ton of stake in the oil business. They know what they are doing and nothing is by accident.
read more | digg story
Yep. The great U-S-A is where the world's true "weapons of mass destruction" are made. Even when the US has undergone a warhead reduction scheme, it is still capable of blowing the planet much many times over. Yet, look at how it steps on the sovereignty of other states.
Statesmen own and collaborate with companies and weapons complexes responsible for producing the arms used in almost all of the world's war. Guns and oil seems to be the most effective interventionist excuse in the guise of war on terror.
Post a Comment