I looked up Khoonkh. It’s Persian, not Arabic, which fits with the official US narrative that the Ayatollahs ordered 9/11, and it was perpetrated by their co-religionists in Afghanistan (led by Mullah Omar, a very popular name among the Ayatollahs), Saddam’s Iraq, and the DPRK (to which Bush, jr later added Libya, Syria, and Cuba). Of course, thorough investigation proved no Saudi was involved. The US courts found Iran guilty of causing 100% of the damage of 9/11, and found Saudi 100% innocent, and we all know the US courts are the most honest, incorruptible, and reliable in the world. (The Arabic word is ‘Safah’.)
I found khoonkh as ‘bloodthirsty’ in Persian. Of course, Hindi, Urdu, and Persian are related languages. Europe has a tendency to use Greek names for hysterical reasons, and (except for Greeks) no one knows what they mean, we just know they’re standard names so parents give them to their children. With fiction, I sometimes just read the name as I do in English, but sometimes I try to dig a bit. I am, of course, annoyed by the official US version (approved by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the US government) that Iran was responsible for 9/11 and is the leader of the Daesh and al-Qaeda. If I were writing fiction, the top American experts would all ‘know’ that the Iranians belong to the blood-thirsty, jihadist Sufi sect of Islam, while the Saudi Arabians belong to the peaceful, non-violent Shi’a sect. So the name that has tie-ins to Persia (I didn’t realise the tie-in was via Hindi) bothered me. Of course, you have the UK(?) jihadis (or are they Americans?), good, native-English speaking jihadis working with that great organisation that is always fighting for freedom and democracy: the CIA, with names like Colin, and that was no problem at all (given the Brits who chopped a bunch of heads off on YouTube). The fact that it’s an Urdu-Hindi word transliterated was unrecognised by me. And I figured the arabi meant Arab(ic). So ‘Bloodthirsty Arab’ in Persian fits the official US narrative perfectly. But I guess ‘arabi’ in Urdu isn’t a transliteration of عربي but of something else. Thanks for the explanation.
Interesting development. Waiting to see where this arc goeth.
I looked up Khoonkh. It’s Persian, not Arabic, which fits with the official US narrative that the Ayatollahs ordered 9/11, and it was perpetrated by their co-religionists in Afghanistan (led by Mullah Omar, a very popular name among the Ayatollahs), Saddam’s Iraq, and the DPRK (to which Bush, jr later added Libya, Syria, and Cuba). Of course, thorough investigation proved no Saudi was involved. The US courts found Iran guilty of causing 100% of the damage of 9/11, and found Saudi 100% innocent, and we all know the US courts are the most honest, incorruptible, and reliable in the world. (The Arabic word is ‘Safah’.)
“Qatil” is “murderer” and “khoonkharabi” is “bloodshed” in Urdu and Hindi.
I found khoonkh as ‘bloodthirsty’ in Persian. Of course, Hindi, Urdu, and Persian are related languages. Europe has a tendency to use Greek names for hysterical reasons, and (except for Greeks) no one knows what they mean, we just know they’re standard names so parents give them to their children. With fiction, I sometimes just read the name as I do in English, but sometimes I try to dig a bit. I am, of course, annoyed by the official US version (approved by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the US government) that Iran was responsible for 9/11 and is the leader of the Daesh and al-Qaeda. If I were writing fiction, the top American experts would all ‘know’ that the Iranians belong to the blood-thirsty, jihadist Sufi sect of Islam, while the Saudi Arabians belong to the peaceful, non-violent Shi’a sect. So the name that has tie-ins to Persia (I didn’t realise the tie-in was via Hindi) bothered me. Of course, you have the UK(?) jihadis (or are they Americans?), good, native-English speaking jihadis working with that great organisation that is always fighting for freedom and democracy: the CIA, with names like Colin, and that was no problem at all (given the Brits who chopped a bunch of heads off on YouTube). The fact that it’s an Urdu-Hindi word transliterated was unrecognised by me. And I figured the arabi meant Arab(ic). So ‘Bloodthirsty Arab’ in Persian fits the official US narrative perfectly. But I guess ‘arabi’ in Urdu isn’t a transliteration of عربي but of something else. Thanks for the explanation.