Iraqi Woman Confesses on Jordan TV

By SHAFIKA MATTAR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 14 minutes ago

AMMAN, Jordan - Strapped with a disabled explosives belt, an Iraqi woman arrested Sunday confessed on television to trying to blow herself up with her husband in one of three suicide attacks earlier this week that killed 57 people.

The 35-year-old woman — the sister of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's right-hand man who was killed by U.S. forces in Iraq — appeared on Jordanian state TV hours after she was captured by security forces who were tipped off by an al-Qaida claim that a husband-and-wife team participated in Wednesday's bombings. Looking nervous and wringing her hands, Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, 35, described how she failed to blow herself up during a wedding reception at the Radisson SAS hotel on Wednesday night after struggling with the cord on her explosives belt.

"My husband wore an (explosives-packed) belt and put one on me. He taught me how to use it," al-Rishawi said, wearing a white head scarf, a black gown and a disabled bomb belt tied around her waist.

"My husband detonated (his bomb) and I tried to explode my belt but it wouldn't," she said. "People fled running and I left running with them."

snip

Muasher said the woman was wearing two vests, one packed with explosives and the other with ball bearings to inflict maximum damage. "This technique was used in all three of the attacks," he told CNN.

snip

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/jordan

but not only did al queada accept responsibility for it, they also gave their reasons

Powerful organization on Earth.

Or maybe a CIA HumanInt mole in AQ.

and AQ in personnel.

I am not so sure.

You asked "You are assuming there is a difference in CIA..and AQ in personnel.....I am not so sure."

I live just down 880 from Berkeley and just down 101 from San Francisco, and the correct "Progressive" query is

"You are assuming there is a difference in CIA..and Mossad in personnel.....I am not so sure."

If you want to be a real San Francisco Bay Area Progressive - bluest region in the bluest state in the country -- you have to ask the right question.

we don't need to make separation in Mossad and AQ.

...the phrase "Al Qaeda" to describe the global network of terrorists belonging to Radical Islam.

I find it interesting that both the NeoCon Junta and Al Qaeda have benefitted greatly from 911. The NeoCon Junta consolidated their power by the passage of the Patriot Act, and Al Qaeda became the recepient of massive numbers of new recruits eager to continue their war against the U. S. OBL also benefitted personally...he will go down in history as a hero of Radical Islam.

The Mossad and Israel also believed that they would benefit from our illegal and immoral invasion/occupation of Iraq. They believed, as did the leadership of the NeoCon Junta, that any conflict in Iraq would be over quickly. It appears that their plan backfired terribly, placing Israel in even more danger than they were before.

The official story is that OBL became estranged from his family because of his radical beliefs. Some accounts, coming directly from Bin Laden family members, is that OBL and his family never had a falling out and remain as close as they have always been. If true, and IMHO, that places the friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families in even closer scrutiny.

in fact grown because of the war in Iraq, but there were already quite active long before that. If you look at the situation globally, there have been jihadist attacks all over the world, so it isn't limited only to the Middle East and the attacks aren't only against Western interests, but target innocent people all over: Indonesia, Bali, the Phillipines, Africa, Spain - the fact is, even without the Iraq war this represents a movement. How broadbased it is, is an open question but it clearly troubles moderate Muslims all over the world as well as posing a threat to others.

As far as Israel and "the Mossad", which isn't a separate political entity but which in fact is Israel's secret service, and which has served America well, thinking they'd benefit from Iraq, I don't think it's so simple. The Mossad in fact warned the US that Saddam did NOT have WMD's, but had sent them to Syria. Syria and Iran really worried Israel more I think, as they are directly housing and funding terrorists.

On the other hand, Israel has had problems with Iraq and was justifiably afraid of them. So they were glad to see Saddam's huge army disbanded. Craig Unger, in "House of Bush, House of Saud", reports that GHWB actually was very supportive of Saddam and gave him chemical weapons after the Israelis took out their reactor. Then, the Reagan Administration used Israel to arm Iran. What a mess. This was during the Iran/Iraq war - such craziness. Israel is a pawn as much as any other small state we deal with.

However, I'm quite sure they weren't so naive as the politicos in Washington. After all they've been fighting a war for survival for 60 years and are quite aware of the nature of the Middle East, since they are a part of it. They surely realized this wouldn't be one-two-three. Moreover, Arab and Muslim anger at Bush in Iraq has also blown up against Israel - again, not something they wouldn't have foreseen. I surely did, as I've been studying the M.E. for decades. I was horrified when Bush decided to invade Iraq for exactly that reason: there was no way it would be simple and quick but would in fact result in horrible, long-term violence.

As far as OBL and the Sauds, and the closeness of Bush and the Sauds - I agree, I think that's very worrisome. But it goes beyond that. Because of our dependence on Saudi oil we're all involved, someplace along the line.

The money for this is coming from SOMEPLACE. In the 80's it was clearly Saudi Arabia. It is hard for me to believe that they aren't still contributing bigtime, if only to keep the terrorists out of Saudi Arabia - which they've attacked and threatened before.

And, we are in the horrible position of funding it every time we drive a car or turn on the lights.

Nobody shot all those kids in a Russian school and nobody brought down the WTC - just like nobody landed on the moon. Somebody wrote a song about nobody once. It went something like this, "Well, your nobody called today. She hung up when I asked her name. I wonder. Does she think she's being clever?" Ah, but nobody is very clever, isn't she? All of these things happen and the real genius behind it is a fat, pasty-faced white guy who likes S & M and even controls the weather.

Me thinks conspiracy theorists give Stupid White Guys way too much credit.

And what's more, some current policies are undoubtedly inspiring many young people to at least aspire to such a course of action.

But that doesn't mean it's illogical to suggest, based on the evidence (or lack of same), that every time some governmental establishment and/or 'media' authority points the finger they are telling the truth.

And we certainly know, from the historical record as so far available to us, that governments have engaged in terrorist-type activities in the immediate past.

hundreds of millions into a war based on utter lies that it never wanted to fight, and then post something like that, I would like a nice dose of some of that denial you're posting.

The question is not whether there are "terrorists". (I call them "criminals".)

The question is who is doing the acts of terrorism (crime).

Do we know? Oh, of course we do! CNN and Faux News tell us who is doing it.

And Bush/Cheney tells CNN and Faux News who is doing it.

This "woman confessing" story is bullshit. I don't personally know who does each act of terrorism (crime). I just know that Bushco/Faux/CNN cannot be trusted to tell me the truth about who's doing it.

... to Airstrip One via coded radio messages. I was in league with Goldstein. I intentionally spread venereal disease among the Inner Party that I'd contracted in the proletariat zone...."

Ah, well, maybe this works in Jordan.

... that's my only point--that it stinks of propaganda. First, there's been little hard evidence that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden are in cahoots. There are a number of sources familiar with them both in Afghanistan, and the word is they didn't get along at all and kept their distance from each other. Second, this is yet another reiteration of a killed #2 man.

Third, ask yourself--if this woman appeared in person on Fox News in New York, four days after the bombing, wearing her explosive vest and confessing to Sean Hannity, what would you think? Perhaps that it just might be a bit over the top? Because that's what I think--it's just a bit too much over the top for all the details to be believed without some skepticism.

Such events as the Amman bombings are ripe for exploitation.

I will look at the Arab and Mideast papers as a countercheck to what we have here for news. They are saying the same thing as the western press for this story.

Yours "...Zarqawi and bin Laden are in cahoots"

I think they very well could be running separate operations. Whatever, I call them both al qaida type terrorist groups

... because they're the closest we have in this country to a state television system--which is where this woman was displayed for the nation.

I also think that attempts to meld various groups with differing motives for their actions blurs our understanding of the true nature of the situation. Lumping them all together under the handy label of terrorists is something I try not to do.

The fact that the Middle Eastern papers and the AP are saying the same thing may only indicate that the only information available right now is from the Jordanian government.

Let us recall that newspapers here and in the UK were spouting a great deal about al-Qaeda after the London bombings. It was only later, and after some digging by the press that it was determined that that attack was homegrown. And, lest we forget, that unfortunate Brazilian who was killed by the police and the SAS was for several days described as a co-conspirator with the London bombers who was wearing a heavy coat to conceal explosives. Only later did we find out the truth.

One of the remarkable things about horrific and startling events like this is that people immediately want some news about the why of it all. It's at that point that it's easy for governments to get disinformation out in a way that's believable to the public. One's usual discrimination is suspended in the midst of shock or surprise.

Cheers.

The London bombings were terrorist just as the Jordanian bombings and whether they are called jihadists or mideast terror groups or anti-west something or other, they all go after innocent civilians in despicable ways. Going after civilians this way is terrorist, to strike fear, etc.

Fox, I heard, is losing market share.
Peace

terrorist operations function on the cell level.

... for one, suggests a linkage. The US government has been trying to link the two for several years. That's one of my points. :)

Cheers.

and others in his party, and a group of Chinese 'students' who may also have been something else and may have been meeting the aforementioned, it seems, were killed at the Grand Hyatt?

ref. eg: http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/347886.php

The Al-Quada claim of a husband and wife team didn't fit the facts, so a new chapter is written for the story. It makes you wonder who really made the claim on behalf of Al-Quada.

It's her way of getting her old CIA job back. Porter Goss told her to make the claim.

They are condemning the al qaida attacks.

I am condemning the attacks too. I just can't be sure of the source of the attacks, based on some website claims, and a confession that may or may not have been the result of torture, for example.

the first world trade center attack, the second world trace center attack, the africian embasy, the cole, and others that we haven't even heard about?

do you deny al queadas existence?

I think that such an organization does exist, and has been responsible for a number of attacks. Since the CIA helped bring the organization into existence, we can be pretty sure of that. I do doubt that every event that has been attributed to them can actually be attributed to them, though. I also doubt that they are a monolithic entity - probably most of the more localized bombings in Iraq for example have nothing to do with them.

In the context of the Iraq war (and I would put these Jordanian incidents in that general context), there is plenty of scope for lies about who did what. The invasion of Iraq opened a real Pandora's Box that way.

As for the Jordanian hotel bombings, a website posting claiming responsibility just seems inadequate to identify the perpetrators. Perhaps we will see more convincing information. A public trial, with lawyers, evidence and all the appropriate standards of evidence is what is really needed.

toward Israel and the United States administration, that they close their eyes to the facts, when they themselves have no facts to back up that the CIA or mossad were involved, they casually throw the charge around.

Your point is extremely important, the Middle eastern papers themselves are reporting al quida did the attacks, and these are from areas where their is no love for Israel or the U.S.

admitting it's al qaida, in editorials, in reporting by the media and statements by the governments. It could be an off-shoot group, a copycat group, but when they all all seem to relate the same thing, I go along.

And your well-stated point, I think, is far more important than anything I wrote... your point about animosity, closing eyes and charges casually thrown around. There's some real denial floating around.

Would a true soldier of al Q. allow themselves to be used this way?

Maybe they told her that her entire family would be executed if she didn't make this tv appearance?

blowing themselves up, why should they be scared of execution?

IMO the "true believers" are the suicide bombers, male and female. This "ready to die for Al Quaeda" woman did the quickest 360 attitude turn around that I can imagine.

It's not believable. Why? Because if you truly believe that you are doing "God's work" any subsequent threats would fall on deaf ears. No, she is now shaming her "entire family" because they would ID with her cause.

This whole "Made in Iraq" label put on this attack will be successfully countered within a week. I hope it doesn't negatively effect "The Royalty" of Jordan when the people realize that they've been lied to. :(

or say she did something wrong. She just factually answered questions. I noticed no remorse, guilt, etc. Did you?

As to this: "This whole "Made in Iraq" label put on this attack will be successfully countered within a week"

We'll see what happens by 11/20. Something tells me you'll be "eating your hat" on that boast. Same comment applies with your comments about the King of Jordan.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

doesn't it?

:eyes:


People blowing themselves to bits and, you know, just blowing up anyone who happens to be getting married or whatever in the same building, that's a really healthy psyche.

:eyes:

She probably is not scared of execution if she was willing to off herself this past week.

...prior to Desert Storm?

Did you also believe, and do you continue to believe in WMDs in Iraq?

Did you also believe, and do you continue to believe that Niger was selling "yellowcake" to Iraq?

Did you also believe, and do you continue to believe that Syria stored Iraq's WMDs?

Do you also believe that Iran is very close to developing nuclear weapons?

Bonus Points: What is the major difference between public executions carried out in North Korea, and executions carried out by the U. S. prison system?

Just curious.

You really don't know anything about the Iraqi woman, do you? The only "facts" being presented are those coming from the people we have grown to completely distrust. Why do you believe they're telling the truth now?

and never believed. However, would you care to point out what you mean by "we" in your penultimate line? Are you writing about we in the US, we in the West, we of the world,etc?

PS I think we in the US are somewhat to a lot better than N Korea on the point mentioned. Let's put it this way; For your bonus points:would you rather be put on trial here or in N. Korea or China? Just curious

Do you have no inherent distrust of the Jordanian government? Other governments in the Mideast? Iran? all others?

If she was truly "willing to off herself this past week", then she's legit. Therefore, the powers that be are not now forcing her into her TV "confession"--because her TV "confession" is true.

If, OTOH, she is being forced into making a FALSE "confession" on TV, then that means she was NOT "willing to off herself this past week", and is therefore quite susceptible to being frightened by, say, a threat of execution of her and/or her whole family.

referencing your last paragraph especially. I never wrote a word about a false confession, so how can you even try to surmise what I think or would argue about that?

Okay, I did.

The exchange of posts:

Poster 1:"This is fishy.
Would a true soldier of al Q. allow themselves to be used this way?
Maybe they told her that her entire family would be executed if she didn't make this tv appearance?"

Poster 2:"Uh, her whole family does not seem to be scared of
blowing themselves up, why should they be scared of execution?"

YOU: "Sounds like she comes from a really mentally healthy family
doesn't it?
People blowing themselves to bits and, you know, just blowing up anyone who happens to be getting married or whatever in the same building, that's a really healthy psyche.
She probably is not scared of execution if she was willing to off herself this past week."

Above is the conversation I read. Note the parts in boldface. Poster 1 speculates that maybe the woman is only "confessing" on TV b/c someone threatened to blow up her whole family. This implies that the "confession" is false. If the "confession" is false, then that means she DIDN'T try to blow herself up and therefore is probably not a fearless, crazy, wannabe suicide bomber.

Poster 2 has accepted the TV "confession" as truth. Poster 2 assumes that the woman not only "tried to blow herself up", but that she has family members who would or did do the same. If we join Poster 2 in the assumption that the woman really WAS a would-be suicide bomber, then that means the woman is not lying on TV with her "confession", and that therefore nobody is scaring her into lying on TV.

Your comment, "she probably is not scared of execution if she was willing to off herself this past week" is essentially a reiteration of what Poster 2 said. You seem to be leaning towards the belief that the woman was a for-real suicide bomber. If she's a for-real suicide bomber, then she's telling the truth on TV. No coercion needed. No "threats to blow up her family" needed. Therefore, no fear or fearlessness, on her part, of such threats.

It is only if she is LYING on TV that an explanation is required--perhaps she was coerced, perhaps her family was threatened, etc. If she is LYING on TV, that means she is NOT some fearless suicide bomber, but is in fact probably as susceptible as anyone else to threats against herself/her family.

As a small bonus, I would like to respond to something in one of your other posts. You said to a poster: "Do you have no inherent distrust of the Jordanian government? Other governments in the Mideast? Iran? all others?"

The government in which I have the most distrust is the current United States government. That is because it is being controlled by criminals.

Oh. And the funniest thing! I saw a photo of one of the lobbies of one of those Jordan hotels, and the ceiling was all blown away. It appears to have fallen down, as though a bomb were planted inside it. I wonder how one of those "suicide bombers" managed to get his or her body all the way up to the ceiling? (Don't tell me, let me guess: "The force of the explosion just lifted him or her right up through the ceiling!" Yeah, right!)

but not the whole US government. But certainly, Bush, Cheney, Condi and the rest of the Vulcans. ALso Frist and the rest of that gang in Congress. The explosives... I know nothing about explosives so I have no idea what X amount of X explosive can do to drywall. I believe there was no structural damage to the hotels, but I could be wrong. I think I read somewhere it was a very powerful explosive and they were carrying about 30 pounds.

Until I learn something to the contrary from multiple media sources, I will believe this woman is a real would-be bomber.

Oh, and yours:"Do I have to?" Of course not (but it was very nice)!

you learn something to the contrary from multiple media sources, you will (you say) believe this woman is a real would-be bomber.

As for me, until I learn something to the contrary (from multiple media sources? sounds like a reasonable test..), I will believe that the whole Jordan bombing episode is a mini-9/11, done by some plotters (not necessarily the ones who are officially blamed) for some underhanded propaganda purpose.

And my belief above does not necessarily rule out yours--that the woman is a real would-be bomber. The question in my mind is, who is really behind the whole bombing plot?

The question of this woman is not unlike the question surrounding Andrea Yates. With Andrea Yates, it was proved that she drowned her children. But the argument arises from some people saying that she did that because she is essentially a criminal, and that she therefore should be jailed for life--while other people say that she did that because she has a serious brain disorder which makes her unable to have criminal intent.

OTOH, there are some other obvious questions about this "bomber" woman. Why, when she was on camera and being interviewed and filmed, etc., why was she STILL WEARING THE EXPLOSIVES BELT?!?

We have been played over and over and over with this "terrorism" scam. Murder is real, murder is easy to see, but catching the REAL person(s) behind the murders can take a long time. I'm still waiting.

As long as we keep open minds as new evidence comes into play, we tend to arrive at the same place. I tend to believe what I read as long as I read it in a lot of places. It doesn't mean I believe everything as 100% correct as I know reporters make errors, mistakes are made in investigations, things are done for propaganda purposes,etc.

I think you are right about Yates too and I understand both sides of the issue (though I tend to fall on the side of she was not responsible for her actions as she was psychotic:when a person is hallucinating /talking aloud to imaginary beings in the room). I would fault her, though, for having so many kids.

The woman suicider...I read that the belt was totally disabled and they wanted her to put it on to demonstrate how she wore it under her coat and all that. They basically had her modelling it. I found that very interesting...first time I saw one up close and in detail like that. I think it weighed about 30 pounds though it didn't look it.

Allegedly she tried to set off her bomb first - and when it did not go off - her husband asked her to leave the room. Why would he do that? Why did they not set off the bombs at the same time as one would expect? Why would she try and set her own bomb off first? Too weird for me.

It does not really make sense.

Why is she wearing the bomb on TV? Don't you think they would get the thing off of her before lining up the press for photo ops?

The question is - who benefits from linking al-Queda in Iraq? Who benefits from a terrorist attack in Lebanon?

It does nothing for Iraq or the insurgent movement. If anything the act is detrimental and could possibly affect funding for the Iraqi resistance.

{I have no idea if she is being framed, or not}

and is just making this up.

this person has several problems,
the relatives of the victims want to kill her family,
lots of people in Iraq want to kill her family,
al-queda wants to have her killed in prison because
they think {the bomb-maker will claim his bomb was ok}
she did not carry out her mission, in
addition to possibly exposing a-q members to the police

young people, sent to kill and die, at checkpoints. Clearly they, thank G*d, "chickened out" and chose life.

Also those belts fail.

...out their missions, and that the body of one of those four was the body of a woman.

And yet, now we're supposed to accept the "revised" story as the "official" story...that the woman's bomb somehow failed to detonate.

How convenient that we now have an Iraqi confessing to carrying out a mission in Jordan when Jordan's support for the conflict in Iraq appears to be wavering. Is this event Jordan's "Pearl Harbor", in much the same way as 911 was the NeoCon Junta's Pearl Harbor?

only stupid Americans are stupid enough
to believe this crap

reporting this and people in Jordan have been demonstrating against the violence.

I think it's only conspiracy theorists who don't believe it. I can't help but recall the London bombings.

Didn't people feel a little silly when the bombers didn't turn out to be the horrible Mossad, but were in fact Brits of Pakistani descent?

Conspiracy theories, belief in the tooth fairy, etc, are a means to try and control events. Putting a tragedy like this, like 9/11, in the realm of conspiracy theories means it can be dealt with: once the "truth" is discovered, the perpetrators will be brought to justice, tried and sentenced and the problem will go away.

In the old days, when things went awry, a scapegoat was chosen, all the sins of the community tied to his back and he was then driven out into the desert. This was supposed to end the troubles and life would return to normal.

Interestingly, we still have the same damn scapegoat.

It's a lot harder to deal with the fact that events AREN'T within our control, that people out there really are trying to hurt each other, that this isn't an invention of the media. In fact, there is a serious problem out there, and we might become victims ourselves and worse, it isn't within rational powers to control. WWI and WWII were like this. We need to wake up and realize we don't live in a TV movie.

People who've been dealing with terrorism for years don't make up conspiracy theories about it. Think about that.

Another alternative would be dissent within Jordan itself, possibly including the security forces there. There has been speculation that the bombings required at least some inside help.

I was worried, they might be overstressed with all the conspiring they're supposedly up to.

Beyond that, I think the point about conflicting groups in Jordan is interesting. They have had troubles in the past of course, as in Black September in Jordan, which saw the expulsion of Yasser Arafat and the PLO.

However, the choice of targets doesn't fit with an internal political debate unless such a group, that you propose might have done the deed, shares Al Qaeda's orientation politically and religiously. These targets were specifically selected because they represent Western interests, an interface with the outside and modern world and because Israeli tourists and business people frequent one of them regularly. Also I can't see an internal group blowing up a Jordanian wedding.

One would think the King himself or the headquarters of a rival political group would have been more to the point of such an attack and the message would have been very different. It wouldn't have been the same verbiage about crusaders and Jews that is so common in Iraq, but would have spoken directly to the problem such a group might have been confronting. For example in Black September the target was the King.

As for your other comments below, that the people in the Middle East don't necessarily see all the same way, this is true. Some continue to blame the usual suspect, Israel, at least as a root cause; while others blame George Bush.

A recent article in Ha'aretz says Israel is seen as being the guilty party in local terrorist attacks (on Israel) whilst George Bush is guilty of causing all the attacks everywhere else. Interestingly, this leaves the actual bombers, innocent.

Go figure.

In the middle east, all kinds of actors could have motives for all kinds of things. I suppose just destabilizing Jordan and the monarchy could be beneficial for some groups within Jordan - perhaps with a religious motive, perhaps just a simple desire to grab power from a tottering regime. Jordan is also being used by western interests in such a way that simple nationalism could explain a lot of dissent, for example.

The big problem with Al Quada is simply that it is used as something of an all purpose term, which has made it lose a lot of meaning. It is beginning to remind me of the International Communist Conspiracy of earlier times. We know from those days (and from the runup to the Iraq invasion) that sometimes things are what they seem, and sometimes they aren't.

We also know that all parties will lie when it is to their advantage. That's really all I am saying. I suppose I have become a bit of a Mulder - I trust nobody.

I sense that there is real concern about how the event has been perceived in Jordan (and other countries, I suppose). Reasons:

- plenty of U.S./western media coverage of "spontaneous demonstrations" against Zarqawi. The crowds weren't really that big (I heard reports of hundreds in one case, thousands in another). I would have expected more from the population if there was anything approaching unanimity on the subject. That isn't to say that there isn't substantial outrage in Jordan.

- the Clintons quick visit to Jordan likely had a "prop up the government" aspect to it. That isn't to say the Clintons weren't genuinely concerned.

I guess I am saying that I think the population of Jordan is very divided on how they see these events, and who they think the perpetrators were. We are likely getting a very one sided picture in the press.

MAYBE. I'm not saying this is the answer; I'm saying that this is one possible answer.

First:

LOS ANGELES -- "Moustapha Akkad, the Syrian-born Hollywood filmmaker behind the "Halloween" film franchise, died in a Jordanian hospital Friday of wounds suffered in this week's terror strikes on three hotels in Amman."

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/5302974/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news

Second:

"OF PROPHETS AND PROFIT: MOHAMMED IN THE MOVIES.
By Erik Sofge 03.03.04

Any religious movie worth caring about will stir up massive controversy. But as newsworthy as film adaptations of the Greatest Story Ever Told continue to be, nothing compares to the brief, violent, and deeply problematic history of putting the prophet Mohammed on screen.

According to the Shari'a, the Islamic holy law formulated after Mohammed's death, depictions of the Prophet and many of his close companions are strictly forbidden. Visual representations of Mohammed are considered tacit lies, since no man-made image could ever express the sanctity of the prophet and his disciples.

This is a highly logical restriction. The book is always better than the movie, as any quidditch-kibitzing Harry Potter fan can attest, and with no reliable sources for what Mohammed actually looked like, how do you cast one smoldering Mediterranean over another? To avoid belittling misinterpretations, the father of Islam is not an easy mark for every hack with a Hi-8 camera and delusions of grandeur.

Remarkably Hollywood, that hotbed of heroic Ku Klux Klanners, crook-nosed Jewish antagonists and general cultural annihilation, had never blundered into a full-fledged Mohammed-on-film disaster. But in 1976 a Syrian-born director, Moustapha Akkad, began shooting a film called "The Message," an epic in the tradition of "Lawrence of
Arabia" about the contentious birth of Islam.

Because excising the Prophet from his own story would be impossible, Akkad was forced to make a film whose protagonist was, in effect, absent. A Muslim himself, Akkad knew what was at stake -- no one had ever successfully attempted a play, much less a film about the Prophet. If he pulled it off, he'd be the cinematic voice of the Muslim world. If not, they might literally kill him.

In the late 1970s, the so-called fundamentalist revolution was sweeping the Arab world, and as the West continued to plunder the oil-rich lands of Mohammed's birth, the excesses of Hollywood were square in the sights of the new fanatics.

Akkad's solution was simple: Shoot around the protagonist.

Mohammed never appears in "The Message," but he's presented in the first-person in a tactic worthy of the most laughable B-movies. When necessary, Akkad uses the camera to represent what the Prophet sees. He goes places, people talk to him, and, oddly enough, he does things. Like a recurring slasher-cam or brain-jacked Malkovich, you are strapped into a cranial shotgun seat to see Mohammed's life and times unfold. He gives plenty of commands, but you never hear his voice, whipping the screenplay and supporting characters into a frenzy of clumsy explication.

While never graceful, Akkad's spectral Mohammed generally stays out of the way. The real star of "The Message" is Anthony Quinn as Hamza, the Prophet's bad ass uncle, and film's apparent sole box office hope.

Hedging his bets, Akkad decided to shoot two versions of the film, one in English, and another in Arabic. This meant reshooting nearly every scene and hiring alternate leads. If the film flopped in the U.S., maybe the Middle East would be more receptive.

But the Arab world was already playing telephone with news of Akkad's film, mangling facts with fiction and topping the finished rumor with a dash of cross-cultural bias. The rumor was that a Mohammed movie would be made, starring a big-name American celebrity. And since it involved the Americans, who were sure to add insult to sacrilege, then obviously Charlton Heston was in the title role of the Prophet. The final, distilled word-of-mouth amounted to, "Screw you and your huge religion, America is making a movie starring Moses as Mohammed."

This didn't sit well with the devout. Bomb threats were already being called in, so Akkad hired four Islamic clerics to oversee the production, trying to quash any unfounded rumors. Shooting began in Morocco, with a sprawling replica of ancient Mecca and the requisite cast of thousands. But soon enough, the clerics quit -- though they retained writing credits, a perfect film industry paradox. Then King Faisal of Saudi Arabia managed to convince Morocco's King Hassan that the false Mecca built for the movie was *too* good and might draw pilgrims away from the real holy city. Akkad was promptly kicked off his own set, and out of Morocco." (snip)

www.blacktable.com/sofge040303.htm

Syrian-born Akkad ticks off Islamic militants by making a film about Mohammed (how profane!) and by adopting the decadent western lifestyle of Hollywood.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATION:

Syrian-born Akkad dies in a deliberate bombing in Jordan.

Somebody got revenge. Remember how Salman Rushdie was threatened?

Why did they wait so long? Who knows? Maybe they couldn't get him while he was on western "turf".

So maybe the whole thing was a personal vendetta between Islamic fundies and this man Akkad. Just a hypothesis.

Here is my theory...

What if there was collusion with "al-Qaida in Iraq" and Hamas? Two of the people killed were top Palestinian officials, Intelligence and Security. (source) What if Hamas, which is trying to gain power in the upcoming elections, decided to "bump off" some of the competition. They can't come out and just do it because that would screw them in the polls. BUT, what if they made contact with al-Qaida? Hamas is not known for going outside of Israeli borders, so no flags. BUT, if al-Qaida attacked an American chain (hotels in this case), it would seen as a response to Jordan being so Western-friendly. The first hotel hit was the one with both PA officials.

The moral: what does al-Qaida care if Jordanians hate them? BUT, Hamas, cannot be in the spotlight as doing something like this. Notice that most of the recent suicide attacks in Israel, and the threats, have not been from Hamas, but the Islamic Jihad. Also, Hamas, recently, three days before the attacks, requested asylum in Jordan (they are getting the boot from Syria) and were flat-out denied.

Possible?

I guess there were several "high value targets" there. That makes it difficult to figure out which one was THE target.

But our two suppositions do tend to take this out of the realm of just sheer "terrorism" (which is what 9/11 is generally thought to be, despite the fact that there was at least one "high value target" killed at the WTC), and more into the realm of just a "hit."

I am completely ready to believe, as you suggest, that Hamas and Al Quaeda are linked. One reason I believe that is that I have seen articles claiming that both Hamas and Al Quaeda are Mossad-backed organizations. That's a little extreme; I don't think the two organizations are necessarily purely the creation of the Mossad, but I certainly think the Mossad has probably infiltrated both the organizations--if they haven't, then they sure aren't much of a spy agency! (I'm sure our CIA would also like to infiltrate these organizations, just as our FBI and CIA have easily infiltrated our own homegrown terrorist organizations such as white supremacist groups--but our spook organizations have a problem with infiltrating "Arab" organizations. There's a formidable language, cultural, and appearance barrier--our guys are just not middle easterners, and everyone can tell that. I'm sure there are a few exceptions--we may have a few operatives who can "pass", but I think it's very few.)

Rather than wade through the many articles that claim a link btw Hamas, Mossad, and some sham "Al Quada" imitations, I'll just provide the link to the google search page, and you can judge for yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Hamas+Mossad&btnG=Google+Search