Reader Objects to My Calling CIA Killer an Animal and a Killer

Yesterday I posted about the al-Qaeda double-agent, Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, who was a "trusted informant" among key CIA in Afghanistan. I referred to him as an "animal" and a "killer."

Air Force Colonel gives Afghan Girl new backpack

Students visit the Afghan expeditionary Air Group

Photo by Staff Sgt. Christine Jones

Reader RB did not put his thoughts in a comment, he sent an email:

I find your comments on the CIA death story very childish and ignorant.  You are calling the Jordanian attacker "Animal" and "Killer".  What do you think the CIA people are doing in Afghanistan?  Do you think they were handing flowers to the locals?  But, I am sure you best argument against this will be " we are the good white people and them are the evil brown humans"  Humans will never solve any problem if they don't try to see the other side's perspective.

By the way, your favorite book From Time Immemorial is a hoax and highly discredited book!  Just do a quick net search to find out what scholars are saying about it. 

Good luck with your christian faith!

Unidentified Marine talks to Afghan children

while patrolling the streets for Taliban

Photo by Cpl. Albert F. Hunt

 Well, first I do not think the CIA were handing flowers to the locals. I believe the CIA was conducting intelligence so that our designated soldiers can complete the mission they have been handed to interact with the locals and show them the meaning of democracy, and encourage locals to assist in banishing the Taliban.

Marine Cpl. Bethany Hess talks to Afghan children

Cpl. Albert F. Hunt

 While the CIA seeks the intelligence, and our military thoughout the country removes the Taliban scum from the face of the earth, other soldiers hand the children candy, and school supplies and carry them to medics for treatment that their own country fails to supply.

Marine Cpl. teaches Afghan girls to "count numbers"

Cpl. Sarah B. Furrel, Member of Female Engagement Team

Photo by Cpl. Albert F. Hunt

I can't help but wonder if al-Balawi, the killer of the CIA, ever treated an Afghan girl with an acid-splash to her face, courtesy the Taliban? Ah, yes, but the killer was a physician...and I'm sure he treated the children who were the collateral damage of U.S. soldiers. But, again, what of the Taliban, and just out-right victims of the Koran and it's brutal teachings. Tell me, RB, how do you support the inhumanity of your Koran?

Afghan children sit in a classroom awaiting U.S. Military Medical treatment

"More than 3,600 people attended a 2-day humanitarian assistance event

organized by Coalition Soldiers

Photo by Sgt. Teddy Wade

 Yes, American military is a definite threat to muslim, koranic macho bellicosity.

I have no idea who RB is, or what he does. I'll assume RB is a "he."  He sounds like a Muslim man who wants his tidy, sweet little world to continue - you know, that world that loathes education for girls and women - in fact, loathes women for anything other than a vessel, a womb to bear jihadists and daughters to bear them even more, and which thrives on the brut force of the gang torture of villagers. If this is not who he is, then he is a sympathizer.

RB's email gives me an opportunity to talk about my favorite subject, books, and in particular Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. RB says the book is a "hoax," and he urges me to do an Internet search to validate his point. The book was published in 1984, is a heavily foot-noted tome with over 600 pages in my trade paperback. The book is stuffed with indexes and cross-referencing, along with photos of historical documents.

From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters (photo)

RB is correct that I can find From Time Immemorial discredited. The problem with RB's argument, however, is that no one has responsibly disputed the actual foot-noted facts and citations in the book - those which make the heart of Peter's argument. It has been called "rubbish," "a fraud," and "propaganda," and even the charge that "an intelligence agency" probably wrote the book.

The bottom line of the book shows that Arabs "immigrated" to Palestine, and for the most part, they followed the Jews there. That is the heart of the conflict. To supporters of Israel, the conflict is not that Arabs do not have a right to the land. The argument is that the Jews also have a right to the land. To supporters of Palestine, the argument is that Arabs have sole rights to the land and Jews have none.

In the end, the objections boil down to "opinions" about "data," regarding the Arab inflow to the land. Daniel Pipes said this:

Yet neither he [critic Yehoshua Porath] nor any of the detractors I have read has taken on the most striking of her demonstrations in favor of her case, dealing with the phenomenon she calls "in-migration" - that is, the movement of Arabs from other parts of Palestine into the main areas of Jewish settlement. She shows that in the years 1983 to 1947, while the Palestinian Arab population slightly more than doubled in areas where no Jews were settled, it quintupled in the main areas of Jewish settlement. How can this difference be accounted for without including Arab migration as a factor?

In the critique linked above, Pipes meets the objections to Peter's count of the Jews in the area at the time. For the count of Arabs in the land, she used the Ottoman census of 1893. For the count of Jews in the land, she used the count of a French geographer - whose "statistical estimates" range closely to the Ottoman census at times - but not all the time. Critics have jumped on this, proclaiming if Peters was serious and honest about her research, she would have used the Ottoman "statistical estimates" for the Jewish count as well. That count at the time was a little over 9100. As Pipes said she obviously abandoned the Ottoman (Muslim) count of Jews because it was "patently absurd."

The above discussion is of the nature of the opposition to Peters' book. There are many, many reviews that support the book with a great deal of enthusiasm and amazement of the documentation. When I first began blogging, I wrote Who and What are the Palestinians. Following that link will give a good idea of where Joan Peters was going with her book.

The link to the article which RB objected to, CIA Suicide Bomber Double-Agent, is here.

To RB, I'll say good luck with your muslim faith, which has grace for no one but martyrs who receive their 72 virgins. Bwwwwaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaaa! The video below is an interview with Joan Peters by Zola Levitt Ministries. You'll be glad you watched.
Joan Peters Interview