- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by CronicArt
- Feb 14, 2005, 04:00 AMThis is an old topic but I can't resist on a comment.
When one converts to islam it is required that said individual must learn to read, write, and speak arabic. More so for the extremist. To be a true follower of islam one must be fluent in the language of Muhammad and Allah. When one converts they must be schooled to understand the true meanings of the Qur'an.
Same as when one converts to Judaism. Traditionally one must attend hebrew school to learn the language of the Tora, the profits, and of God.
With that being said, posting any translation would not be harmful in any way. These are things that are common knowledge to a jihadist. If anything it has educated the non-arabic speaking american to what these extremist are being taught.
Just my .02 cents
When one converts to islam it is required that said individual must learn to read, write, and speak arabic. More so for the extremist. To be a true follower of islam one must be fluent in the language of Muhammad and Allah. When one converts they must be schooled to understand the true meanings of the Qur'an.
Same as when one converts to Judaism. Traditionally one must attend hebrew school to learn the language of the Tora, the profits, and of God.
With that being said, posting any translation would not be harmful in any way. These are things that are common knowledge to a jihadist. If anything it has educated the non-arabic speaking american to what these extremist are being taught.
Just my .02 cents
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 22, 2003, 03:40 AMGordon,
The post to which you referred includes a hyperlink to the translation of an Al-Qaeda published on-line by the U.S. Department of State.
This document does not, however, address polygraph countermeasures. I mentioned that the State Department had published a translated Al-Qaeda training manual in response to the suggestion by some polygraph supporters that our publication of a translation of an excerpt on lie detection from an Al-Qaeda training manual somehow constituted treason or aiding the enemy.
The post to which you referred includes a hyperlink to the translation of an Al-Qaeda published on-line by the U.S. Department of State.
This document does not, however, address polygraph countermeasures. I mentioned that the State Department had published a translated Al-Qaeda training manual in response to the suggestion by some polygraph supporters that our publication of a translation of an excerpt on lie detection from an Al-Qaeda training manual somehow constituted treason or aiding the enemy.
Posted by Gordon H. Barland
- Sep 21, 2003, 12:12 PMGeorge,
On Nov 18, 2002 you wrote:
"I suggest that concerned individuals consult the U.S. Department of Justice (which has published a much more extensive translation of an Al-Qaeda Training Manual)."
I am interested in reading their countermeasure advice. Can you tell me more precisely where I can obtain a copy. I wasn't able to locate it through Google.
There are many things we disagree on, but I'm with you regarding the value of knowing what Al-Qaeda teaches.
Peace.
Gordon
On Nov 18, 2002 you wrote:
"I suggest that concerned individuals consult the U.S. Department of Justice (which has published a much more extensive translation of an Al-Qaeda Training Manual)."
I am interested in reading their countermeasure advice. Can you tell me more precisely where I can obtain a copy. I wasn't able to locate it through Google.
There are many things we disagree on, but I'm with you regarding the value of knowing what Al-Qaeda teaches.
Peace.
Gordon
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 24, 2002, 05:10 PMQuote from: A Foreign View on Nov 24, 2002, 05:02 PM
To accuse George W. Maschke of treason for publishing an English language version of the advice given to foreign terrorists is hardly reasonable or logical. Fevered nonsense such as this only serves to diminish the credibility of the accusers. It is quite, quite clear that the pro-polygraph lobby feel they have some inalienable right to the moral high-ground of patriotism. Bunkum.
Indeed -- well-put. It is instructive that the polygraph lobby, which so frequently claims the information in TLBTLD is bogus, claimed "treason" when translated versions of al Qaeda's information on the polygraph were posted -- information that, in part, agrees with that in TLBTLD. If bogus, then al Qaeda's information must be useless. Clearly, whatever value the polygraph had has been compromised, yet these proponents would prefer to do away with the evidence.
Thanks for the perspective.
Skeptic
Posted by A Foreign View
- Nov 24, 2002, 05:02 PMI came by your board by accident, and have sat in my office enthralled by the discussion rather than getting on my with work. I am not a US citizen, I am Scottish, but am still intrigued by the comments of your supposed 'Patriots'.
To accuse George W. Maschke of treason for publishing an English language version of the advice given to foreign terrorists is hardly reasonable or logical. Fevered nonsense such as this only serves to diminish the credibility of the accusers. It is quite, quite clear that the pro-polygraph lobby feel they have some inalienable right to the moral high-ground of patriotism. Bunkum.
I note that no-one has stated precisely why this publication would assist any enemy, although it is obvious why its publication would irk those who have some personal, professional or pecuiary interest in the continued use of this obviously medieval technology. You should all note that I say this is someone who has no vested interest at all in the effectiveneess of polygraphy.
From my detached position I would have to say that those who wish to caution against reliance on a method of intelligence gathering which the enemy can, quite clearly, use to its own advantage, are the true patriots.
It may interest you to know that polygraph tests are held in as much esteem in the UK as stage magic and miracle cures.
To accuse George W. Maschke of treason for publishing an English language version of the advice given to foreign terrorists is hardly reasonable or logical. Fevered nonsense such as this only serves to diminish the credibility of the accusers. It is quite, quite clear that the pro-polygraph lobby feel they have some inalienable right to the moral high-ground of patriotism. Bunkum.
I note that no-one has stated precisely why this publication would assist any enemy, although it is obvious why its publication would irk those who have some personal, professional or pecuiary interest in the continued use of this obviously medieval technology. You should all note that I say this is someone who has no vested interest at all in the effectiveneess of polygraphy.
From my detached position I would have to say that those who wish to caution against reliance on a method of intelligence gathering which the enemy can, quite clearly, use to its own advantage, are the true patriots.
It may interest you to know that polygraph tests are held in as much esteem in the UK as stage magic and miracle cures.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 23, 2002, 02:20 AMQuote from: simon on Nov 23, 2002, 01:09 AM
Here is some discussion on the subject:
http://www.afghanistanwar.com/discus/messages/20/7419.html?1037599290
Thanks, Simon!
Skeptic
Posted by simon
- Nov 23, 2002, 01:09 AMHere is some discussion on the subject:
http://www.afghanistanwar.com/discus/messages/20/7419.html?1037599290
http://www.afghanistanwar.com/discus/messages/20/7419.html?1037599290
Posted by simon
- Nov 23, 2002, 12:57 AMIn reference to the manual on the U.S. Department of Justice webiste.
I did not look at Mawsu'at al-jihad, it is probably in arabic.
Posted by simon
- Nov 23, 2002, 12:50 AMAsk Osama, he will confirm.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 22, 2002, 02:54 AMQuote from: American on Nov 22, 2002, 12:00 AM
Loved your legal admonition Skeptic!
Oh, that's a stab in the dark. Imagine what a real lawyer could do with such a case.
Skeptic
Posted by American
- Nov 22, 2002, 12:00 AMLoved your legal admonition Skeptic!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 21, 2002, 04:46 AMFor some historical background on the Mawsu'at al-jihad (Encyclopedia of Jihad), see Reuel Marc Gerecht's article, "The Terrorists' Encyclopedia," published in The Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Summer 2001). Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist, writes in part:
QuoteI took one look at it, the Mawsu'at al-Jihad al-Afghani in Arabic, and realized I just might have a key, perhaps the key, for understanding the evolution and intent of bin Ladin's organization.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 21, 2002, 03:16 AMSimon,
When you claim that the "Al-Q Manual is a fake," which one specifically are you referring to? Do you mean Mawsu'at al-jihad or do you mean the manual on the U.S. Department of Justice webiste?
Specifically what language in the document to which you refer indicates that it is a "fake?" Thus far, you've provided us with nothing to substantiate your claim.
When you claim that the "Al-Q Manual is a fake," which one specifically are you referring to? Do you mean Mawsu'at al-jihad or do you mean the manual on the U.S. Department of Justice webiste?
Specifically what language in the document to which you refer indicates that it is a "fake?" Thus far, you've provided us with nothing to substantiate your claim.
Posted by simon
- Nov 21, 2002, 03:10 AMIt is based on the text.
Posted by Skeptic
- Nov 21, 2002, 12:33 AMQuote from: simon on Nov 20, 2002, 11:41 PM
It is not written by muslim.
I would also like to know how you know this, Simon. Is it based on the text, based on information you've heard somewhere, or based on an opinion that a Muslim wouldn't write it? Or something else?
Skeptic