THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Ican: "Undetermined by Snopes"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

We sent this piece to several Muslim groups and invited them to offer comments; they provided somewhat different explanations about the concept of jihad, how Muslims regard non-Muslims, and other related topics, but they all agreed that the editorial presented a grossly distorted version of their beliefs.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

the US is doing everything in it's power to forward the goals of AQ by creating a showdown between 'cultures'....

No! The AQ have been and are forwarding their goals by creating a showdown between 'cultures'. If it weren't for the AQ there would not be an AQ problem. We would accelerate AQ progress toward their goals by declining to resist (say, passively resist) their efforts.

Why do you think active resistance (e.g., counter attack) promotes the intensification of the efforts of evil scum, while passive resistance doesn't?

It is outrageous, and amazing, that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation. . . .
It is well and good for the Arabs to demand the right of political representation for [Iraq's] Sunni Arabs out of concern for them in the face of the tyranny of the other Iraqi groups and out of concern for national unity and the ideal relative representation. But we do not understand why this concern does not apply to the many Arab countries that do not permit their minorities to announce their existence, let alone their right to [political] representation. . . .
It is sad and pathetic that the eyes of the entire world are upon the Palestinian and Iraqi elections that will be held under the lances of foreign occupation, while the peoples of the "independent, free, and sovereign" Arab countries have no way of expressing their will.

Salameh Nematt
Washington bureau chief for the London-based daily Al Hayat
November 25

Some of the [Arab League] members . . .maintain that the Baghdad government is not legitimate. Why? They argue that it is not elected and was appointed by the American occupation. This widespread view has some basis. . . . However, the talk of the illegitimacy of the [Iraqi] government. . . . allows us to raise questions regarding most of the regimes in the region . . . some of which emerged as a result of coups or internal conspiracies, when no one asked the people what it thought.

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed
director-general of Al Arabia TV, writing in the London-based daily Al Sharq Al Awsat
November 24

We are not being fair to the current Iraqi government. Not me, nor you, nor the other guest on this program, not even the viewers, but history will do justice to them. These people are establishing the first democracy in the Middle East. This country will be a platform for liberties in the whole region. In Iraq, the days of a leader who remains on his throne until he dies are gone. This is over. For the first time the Iraqi leader will be elected by Iraqi ballots.

Egyptian journalist Nabil Sharaf al-Din, speaking on Al Jazeera TV about the future of Iraq
November 23

I think it perfectly plausible to say that the U.S. may have unintentionally worsened terrorism, and yet the terrorists are in no way exonerated.

You might claim that this is factually incorrect, but there are no inherent contradictions to such an argument. [I agree.] Conversely, the statement that “if it weren’t for the AQ there would not be an AQ problem,” does not imply that the AQ is the only actor in the causal chain leading to terrorism. [I agree. Nonetheless, if there were no AQ there would be no AQ problem.] To argue that the U.S. has a causal role (perhaps even as a totally well intentioned actor) would not require that we shift moral blame away from the terrorists -- not at all. Every murder has multiple causes (most of which are morally innocent), but that fact does not absolve murderers. [I agree. However, refusal of Americans to depart the middle east is not a cause of AQ purposeful mass murder, even if it were true that the AQ would actually disassemble if we did pull out. The choice of how the AQ reacts to such a US refusal is 100% the choice and resonsibility of the AQ.]

Reasonable minds may also disagree about what constitutes the proper “active” role. Iraq was one among many avenues available to the administration, and even if we decided that war against Iraq was imperative, there were likely thousands of ways we could have gone about such a war. We chose Iraq, and we chose a certain way of doing Iraq -- that’s not to say it was the only active policy or the best such policy. [Yes, there is nothing sacred or absolutely right about any avenue or method we may choose. But there are some avenues and methods we could have chosen that are absolutely wrong (e.g., killing all the inhabitants of the middle east to be sure we kill all of the AQ).]

On that note, if I don’t stop posting and start studying, I will fail all of my classes -- and I consider everyone here part of the causal chain, even if I alone bear the blame. [I disagree. Your propensity or lack of propensity to be diverted here from higher priority activities is totally self-caused. Whoops! Wait! I suppose we could validly blame it on your DNA. Or, perhaps even, "the devil makes you do it."]

<Edit: To clarify, I'm not certain that Cycloptochorn is stating that our alleged negative effect on terrorism is "unintentional." I only assume as much. I can’t see a good argument that the U.S. would actively and intentionally promote terrorism, and I interpret the above with that in mind.> [So do I.]

...
The Holy Wars of Both religions are mere perversions of this personal struggle to understand one's relationship with his/her God. Now, one man’s Holy Islamic Jihadist is another's Christian soldier. JM

Why do you think active resistance (e.g., counter attack) promotes the intensification of the efforts of evil scum, while passive resistance doesn't?

Quote:

Why do you think active resistance (e.g., counter attack) promotes the intensification of the efforts of evil scum, while passive resistance doesn't?

Because there was no reason to actively resist those in Iraq therefore we created more terrorist.

Home UK Print article | Email article

Attacks make Shia clerics waver on militancy
By Steve Negus in Baghdad
Published: December 6 2004 02:00 | Last updated: December 6 2004 02:00

A black-turbaned Shia cleric drove through the streets of the southern Baghdad district of al-Amel on Saturday, carrying a loudspeaker and mocking the insurgents who scrawled anti-election slogans on the neighbourhood's walls.

"Let those who wrote this show their faces, if they are men," residents quoted him as saying, as two dozen armed supporters followed his motorcade on foot, painting over graffiti that threatened to "cut off the heads" of voters.

"Come and vote," the cleric said to passersby. "We will protect you."

It was a rare display of militancy by one of the pro-establishment Shia clerics, who have so far strongly discouraged any action by their followers against predominantly Sunni insurgents, lest it trigger a civil war.

However, with attacks against the Shia on the increase, and the strong likelihood that the Shia parties will dominate Iraq's first elected postwar government, clerical resistance against direct anti-insurgent action may be wavering.

In the past, Shia-dominated parties and a few mosque-centred networks co-operated quietly with the US military in the gathering of intelligence, but the clergy kept its distance from the US military in the name of national unity.

When bombers - accused of being Sunni insurgents - struck at Shia holy sites in August 2003 and February 2004, many Shia clerics saved their strongest criticism for the coalition authorities, who they said had failed to protect them from attack. However, insurgent threats against forthcoming elections, which have been strongly endorsed by senior Shia scholars such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, may be breaking down the clergy's resolve to stay aloof.

Residents of al-Amel say the anti-election graffiti marked the first time that insurgents had directly threatened them personally as Iraqi citizens exercising their rights - as opposed to threats against "collabor-ators" with the US military or the government.

Religious Shia had already been split over violence in Latifiya, a Sunni enclave that lies on the main highway south of Baghdad leading to the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. Dozens of Shia, from clergy to army and National Guard recruits, have been killed by Sunni ultra-puritans while driving through Latifiya.

Two weeks ago, a dele-gation of tribesmen from Basra calling themselves the "Brigades of Anger" approached Mr Sistani, asking him for permission to launch reprisals in Latifiya, says Sheikh Musa al-Musawy, a representative of the Grand Ayatollah in Baghdad. Mr Sistani refused them his blessing.

"The government will deal with this problem, and the law will take its course," he reportedly said.

However, the Washington Post reported that the brigades had launched an attack on Latifiya on Saturday, clashing with Sunni insurgents in the town.

The paper quoted a militant of the Islamic Army as saying that dozens of people were killed, which would make it the fiercest sectarian violence since the March 2003 invasion. Neither the US military, the Iraqi interior ministry nor Shia clerical sources would confirm the news by the time of going to press.

Meanwhile, insurgents killed nearly two dozen people in two separate attacks in northern Iraq yesterday. Two carloads of gunmen ambushed a bus carrying Iraqi employees of a company doing business with the US army in the town of Tikrit, killing 17, the military said. Another four people were killed when a suicide bomber drove his explosives-laden car into a National Guard checkpoint near the town of Beiji, the site of one of Iraq's largest oil refineries.

1. Shiite List to be Announced Hussein Shahristan...
Shiite List to be Announced

Hussein Shahristani, the Shiite scientist charged by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani with cobbling together a big comprehensive Shiite list, said Monday that the full listing of candidate names (in ranked order) would be made available on Tuesday. The list is being called the United Iraqi Congress. The list groups the major Shiite parties and factions, including the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Dawa Party, the Islamic Dawa, Iraqi Hizbullah (Marsh Arabs), the secular-leaning Iraqi National Congress of corrupt financier Ahmad Chalabi, and many Shiite independents. About half the list will be Shiite tribal chieftains and notables not associated with one of the (largely expatriate) parties. A few Sunni Arabs, Turkmen and Faili Kurds are also on the list, and it was being rumored that the small Sunni Arab nationalist party of Nasiruddin Chadirchi might be on the list as well. Likewise the chieftain of the largely Sunni Shamar tribe may be included on the Sistani list.

The election will be conducted as one national poll, with voters getting only one vote, for a particular list of candidates. If a list has 100 candidates and gets 10 percent of the vote, it will be able to seat its top 27 candidates. The list must be presented in ranked order.

Twelver Shiites of the Usuli school that predominates in Iraq believe that laypersons should defer to religious scholars on issues of religious law. That Sistani backs this list will be a powerful incentive for Shiites to vote for it.

It is still unclear how a disaster will be averted if the Sunni Arabs largely boycott the election or don't come out to vote for their candidates in nearly the same proportions as the Shiites and the Kurds. They could end up substantially under-represented in parliament as it moves to crafting a permanent constitution.

Meanwhile, 600 delegates from the Shiite communities of the Middle Euphrates met in Najaf to consider the creation of a large Shiite province out of several smaller ones. Modern Iraq has 18 provinces. Saddam for some time created and maintained a 19th so as to strength the hand of the Sunni Arabs. Iraq has reverted to 18 provinces, but many Iraqi ethnic groups are dissatisfied with them. The Kurds want to create an ethnic, Kurdish province out of 6 existing provinces. The Shiites of the three far southern provinces have spoken of creating a big Shiite province. Now the Middle Euphrates Shiites appear to be aiming at some gerrymandering of their own. Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, the former national security adviser for Iraq, has suggested dividing Iraq into five ethnic provinces, with one Kurdish, two Sunni Arab and two Shiite. His plan leaves out the Turkmen and Christians, who would demand their own provinces. Countries with small numbers of largely homogeneous ethnically-based provinces tend to be more unstable than countries with large numbers of states or provinces that are each ethnically mixed.

Tue, Dec 7, 2004 0:35

Report: CIA paints bleak Iraq picture[/b]


NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration's portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper.

The classified cable -- sent last month by the CIA's station chief in Baghdad after the completion of a one-year tour of duty there -- painted a bleak picture of Iraq's politics, economics and security and reiterated briefings by Michael Kostiw, a senior CIA official, according to the Times.

The station chief cannot be identified because he is still working undercover, the Times added.

The cable, described as "unusually candid," cautioned that security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy, the paper said.

Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA told the Times that they could not discuss intelligence matters and classified documents.

Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.

Prophet Muhammad said "I am free from who lives among idols".

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.

10/1983 US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut--241 dead Americans;
2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
9/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approx. 1500 dead Americans.

2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202

2003 (May): Al Qaeda suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2004 (June): Al Qaeda kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

I just mentioned those attacks associated with Al Qaeda, where Americans were killed as well.

(You are right, all the other hundreds can be neglected.)

You forgot all the Americans killed by AQ in Iraq, didn't you?

And how many in the US?

Ticomaya wrote:

You forgot all the Americans killed by AQ in Iraq, didn't you?

And how many in the US?

a) I was only answering ican's post, who clearly only referred to Americans.

So, please address this to him.


b) see Einherjar's response.

c) Yes, how many in the USA between 2002 and today? (Your question seems to be totally opposite to ican's intension.)