9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 12:50 pm
Shrug. I don't even know how to begin arguing against a position which is grounded in your intuition.

I will say that there's every likelyhood that Zawahiri and Bin Laden are located in reasonably close proximity to one another; do you feel it is worth trying to catch Zawahiri?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 02:40 pm
On some things, it seems the Iraqi government does work.



Iraq to end contractor 'immunity'
Bodyguards from Blackwater escorting a diplomatic convoy
Blackwater has the contract to guard US diplomats in Iraq
The Iraqi interior ministry has said it has drafted legislation regulating private security companies following a shooting allegedly involving a US firm.

The new code would require contractors to be subject to Iraqi law and to be monitored by the Iraqi government.

The draft is being considered by the consultative State Shura Council before being passed to parliament for debate.

The circumstances of the shooting two weeks ago, in which 11 Iraqis died, are being investigated by a US-Iraqi panel.

The contractor under suspicion, Blackwater USA, has said its guards reacted lawfully to an attack on a US diplomatic convoy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Shrug. I don't even know how to begin arguing against a position which is grounded in your intuition.

I will say that there's every likelyhood that Zawahiri and Bin Laden are located in reasonably close proximity to one another; do you feel it is worth trying to catch Zawahiri?

Cycloptichorn

I meant it when I said your argument was a solid argument. Therefore there is no need for you to provide additional arguement against my intuition. The argument you provided was sufficient.

Because I don't really have a basis for estimating the cost in American life and treasure both before and after capturing Zawahiri and/or bin Laden, and I don't really know the value of capturing them, I'm at a loss to offer a counter argument to yours.

Assuming capturing/executing them will actually lead to a rapid world-wide shut down of al-Qaeda, I think the effort would be worth it, if the cost of invading Pakistan to accomplish that were to be less than the future cost of eliminating al-Qaeda from Iraq and Afghanistan using our current methods.

For me it is a difficult call. Convince me otherwise.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:09 pm
The capture and/or death of bin Ladin will not stop al Qaeda, but it will help in the long run to slow down the recruitment of new members. How much slower is anybody's guess; it's only an assumption.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:11 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Shrug. I don't even know how to begin arguing against a position which is grounded in your intuition.

I will say that there's every likelyhood that Zawahiri and Bin Laden are located in reasonably close proximity to one another; do you feel it is worth trying to catch Zawahiri?

Cycloptichorn

I meant it when I said your argument was a solid argument. Therefore there is no need for you to provide additional arguement against my intuition. The argument you provided was sufficient.

Because I don't really have a basis for estimating the cost in American life and treasure both before and after capturing Zawahiri and/or bin Laden, and I don't really know the value of capturing them, I'm at a loss to offer a counter argument to yours.

Assuming capturing/executing them will actually lead to a rapid world-wide shut down of al-Qaeda, I think the effort would be worth it, if the cost of invading Pakistan to accomplish that were to be less than the future cost of eliminating al-Qaeda from Iraq and Afghanistan using our current methods.

For me it is a difficult call. Convince me otherwise.


From a logical standpoint,

The only difference that we can see between Al Qadea and other terrorist organizations is that: AQ has had some pretty good leadership and planning, while other terrorists have not; they have been successful in their attacks, where others have not. They have been successful at eluding capture for the most part, where others have not. What should we attribute this to? I think two factors:

1, competent leadership. OBL is competent when it comes to planning. It is plainly obvious that they planned for the post-9/11 period, at least somewhat.

2, financing and support - primarily from Saudi Arabia, who has no shortage of money or shortage of hate for America.

Without attacking the source of the problem, we will not defeat AQ. We can kill their pawns all day, and they will just wait until we run out of money or patience. We should attack the source of the problems, if we intend to do anything about them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 07:56 am
The differences in the Pentegon report and Petraeus report on the casualities in Iraq.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/casualties.JPG

Security developments in Iraq, Sept 25

Sept 25 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Iraq at 1200
Quote:
GMT on Tuesday.

* denotes new or updated item.



* DIYALA - A U.S. soldier was killed in Diyala province when an explosion hit his vehicle, U.S. forces said.

* KHALDIYA - A policeman was killed in Khalidiya, 80 km (50 miles) west of Baghdad, in a bomb attack targeting his police patrol.

* BAGHDAD - Iraqi special forces detained on Monday the leader of a militant cell who allegedly participated in bombings which destroyed several U.S. army vehicles and was linked to 10 rocket attacks on the Green Zone in Baghdad.

BAGHDAD - Two car bombs killed six people and wounded 20 in the Zayouna district of eastern Baghdad, police and hospital sources said.

HAWIJA - Hussein Ali Saleh, head of Hawija City Council, was wounded when a suicide car bomber targeted his convoy on a road near the town of Hawija, 70 km (40 miles) southwest of the city of Kirkuk, police said. Two of his guards were wounded.

MOSUL - A suicide bomber wearing an explosives belt blew himself up near a police colonel, wounding the officer and nine others in Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi army killed four insurgents and arrested 31 during the last 24 hours in different parts of Iraq, the Defence Ministry said.

FALLUJA - A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed one policeman and wounded another in Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces captured a suspected militant believed to have ties to the Qods force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and detained six others during operations in Baghdad, the U.S. military said. The main militant was involved in weapons transfers throughout Iraq, the military said.

BASRA - A suicide car bomb killed three people in an attack targeting a police station in the southern Shi'ite city of Basra, police and a health official said. Up to 20 people were wounded. Basra lies 550 km (340 miles) southeast of Baghdad.

BAGHDAD - Twelve bodies were found in different parts of Baghdad on Monday, police said.

BAQUBA - Police put the final death toll at 28 from a suicide bombing on Monday at a mosque where local Shi'ite and Sunni Arab leaders were holding reconciliation talks in the city of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad. The city's police chief was among those killed. Police said 50 people were wounded.

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed one person and wounded four in eastern Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb near a police station wounded seven people, including a policeman, in the Karrada district of central Baghdad, police said.

KIRKUK - Police said they found a body, shot and burned, in Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

KIRKUK - A roadside bomb wounded two people in southern Kirkuk, police said.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 08:07 am
IMO the capture of Bin Laden would be a severe blow to the morale of AQ. I don't think it would stop AQ but it would be a big blow and it would enforce the idea that even someone like Bin Laden can be caught and might negate the idea of Bin Laden has God (Allah) on his side and so is protected from being captured or killed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:17 am
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639

.
Quote:
NEW YORK El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain, today published what it said was the transcript of a private talk between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on February 22, 2003, concerning the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq. It took place at the ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The conversation took place on the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.

Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq inf March "if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not....We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."

He said the U.S. takeover would happen without widespread destruction. He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's good cop.

Aznar pleaded for patience and replied that it was vital to get a U.N. resolution, noting that public opinion in Spain was strongly against the war.


This gives the lie to the 'Saddam wouldn't cooperate' idea. Bush had set his mind on war long before.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:27 am
Quote:
Mercenaries vs. Counterinsurgency
Blackwater could be a worse problem than you think.


By Mario Loyola

Last week's incident involving the Blackwater security firm received a lot of attention ?- and not as much as it deserves. Security contractors perform many vital functions, but in Iraq they are also undertaking roles of military significance outside the military chain of command. And that is asking for big trouble.

Security contractors invariably argue that they provide only defensive services, and do not undertake offensive operations. In a counterinsurgency battlespace, this is a distinction without a difference. In Iraq, driving down the street in an armed truck is an offensive operation. This is especially true because, as the Washington Post recently reported, the contractors are operating under rules of engagement that specifically acknowledge their right to take the actions necessary to defend themselves. And what does that mean? It means whatever the contractors reasonably think it means.

The problem is not that military rules don't apply to the contractors, as the Post article claims, but rather that military strategy doesn't apply to them.

Actions taken in self-defense are normally justified when necessary and proportional. It may well be that Blackwater satisfied that narrow rule. But these contractors are not simply going about their daily lives. They are careening loudly down the streets of Iraq at top speed, switching lanes into oncoming traffic at will, waving everything and everyone out of their way, pointing heavy machine guns at Iraqi cars heavily laden with women and children, with no regard for anything except to protect themselves and their charges. That is their job.

Hence, even if the facts of the most recent Blackwater shooting incident are in fact as Blackwater claims they are, there is still a big problem. The modus operandi of these contractors squarely contradicts some of the most essential elements of the current military strategy ?- the strategy that has produced all the good news we've heard out of Iraq this year.

The counterinsurgency (or "COIN") manual says that the only way to separate the insurgents from the civilian population is to get the population on your side. From this premise follows a series of propositions that the manual itself calls paradoxical:

Sometimes, the More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You May Be

1-149. Ultimate success in COIN is gained by protecting the populace, not the COIN force….

Sometimes, the More Force is Used, the Less Effective It Is

1-150. Any use of force produces many effects, not all of which can be foreseen. The more force applied, the greater the chance of collateral damage and mistakes. Using substantial force also increases the opportunity for insurgent propaganda to portray lethal military activities as brutal….

The More Successful the Counterinsurgency Is, the Less Force Can Be Used and the More Risk Must Be Accepted

1-151. This paradox is really a corollary to the previous one. As the level of insurgent violence drops … rules of engagement may be tightened, and troops may have to exercise increased restraint. Soldiers and Marines may also have to accept more risk to maintain involvement with the people.

Sometimes Doing Nothing Is the Best Reaction

1-152. Often insurgents carry out a terrorist act or guerrilla raid with the primary purpose of enticing counterinsurgents … to react in a way that insurgents can exploit?-for example, opening fire on a crowd…. If an assessment of the effects of a course of action determines that more negative than positive effects may result, an alternative should be considered?-potentially including not acting.


Now think about that. The troops are expected not to act ?- even in their defense ?- if more negatives than positives will result for the overall effort.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, there is nothing paradoxical about that. The best way to protect your forces in a war is to the win and get them out. If, in the meantime, that requires that soldiers throw themselves at certain death on the beaches of Normandy ?- or on Haifa Street in Baghdad ?- then that is what they are expected to do.

And today in Iraq, that is exactly what they are doing. In countless situations, they fight against their survival instincts and lower their guard so the population feels safer. They refuse to return fire when fired upon if they cannot positively "ID" the shooter. They offer their lives so the insurgents don't find a way to take advantage of their firepower. Their willingness to give their lives for the mission is what the military is all about ?- and it is what the counterinsurgency strategy presumes most vitally.

The problem with security contractors is pretty clear: Central Command isn't even sure how many there are ?- according to one source in the Post article, there could be as many as 50,000. They are heavily armed, and use their best judgment of what is necessary for their own protection ?- not for winning the war. The COIN strategy doesn't apply to them. But because neither the insurgents nor the Iraqi people distinguish between contractors and soldiers, what you have in Iraq today is a situation in which perhaps 25-percent of the perceived coalition "force" is operating outside the chain of command, and in violation of the stated strategy.

That means that in the neighborhoods of Baghdad, our soldiers are exercising deadly restraint to win over the population, day after day, for months and weeks on end ?- and all of their work can unravel, all of their sacrifices thrown to the wind because of just one shooting incident carried out by private mercenaries. This is unacceptable ?- not least because the resulting effect is an increase in risks for our soldiers.

And this is a problem that is going to get potentially more serious as time goes by since the COIN manual makes non-military work the exit strategy. As security is reestablished, the work of local reconstruction ?- which requires the assistance of a full range of American non-military personnel, including the State Department ?- becomes the main the focus. Those people need protection ?- and that protection is going to give a lot of firepower to the insurgency.

U.S. government personnel ?- and the security contractors that protect them ?- are going to have to accept many of the same risks that the military have to accept. We must find a way to integrate them more fully and cohesively into the military chain of command.

The COIN manual does an excellent job of preparing soldiers for a whole host of non-military activities. The question it leaves unanswered, but that it must answer, is how to control the military activities of those who are not soldiers.

?-Mario Loyola is a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He just returned from an extended embed in Iraq.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2E0MWNhMjMxZjVhM2JmMjA0Yzg0ODNmNzVjMTk5ZDc=

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 12:41 pm
Gates to investigate contractors in Iraq

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 14 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Unhappy with the Pentagon's oversight of its private contractors in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has dispatched a fact-finding team to probe further into the problem, officials said Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Pentagon also disclosed that for several months it has been developing additional guidance for American commanders and other senior defense officials on how the Uniform Code of Military Justice can be used to discipline contractors. Prior to October 2006 the code did not apply to contractors.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 03:07 pm
It's often said that financial markets hold no values. They strive only for maximum efficiency?-making the most money with the least exposure to risk. If this is true, the war in Iraq is far from over.

Defense stocks soared on Wednesday ahead of the news that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would ask for an additional $45 billion to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008. This is on top of the $145 billion Gates was already authorized to spend, bringing the total cost of the war next year to $190 billion. The AMEX Defense Index, which tracks the financial performance of defense companies, has gone up 47 percent since September, 2006. Obviously, traders see little risk in defense investments even as Washington endlessly debates when troops should be pulled out.

Gates's request does not come as a surprise. What is surprising is Wall Street's expectation that defense spending will remain high well after President Bush leaves office.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6442
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 07:38 am
In reply to both the Spain/Bush conversation and the contractor situation in Iraq. I am ashamed to be associated with our president and this war; it is just dishonorable all the way around. Whats worse; I am not sure how anyone following will be able to undo it all or if it is possible. Lets say we leave; will that help anything other than our pocketbooks? If we stay will that help anything in Iraq? I think it is no to both questions.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:37 am
revel wrote:
In reply to both the Spain/Bush conversation and the contractor situation in Iraq. I am ashamed to be associated with our president and this war; it is just dishonorable all the way around. Whats worse; I am not sure how anyone following will be able to undo it all or if it is possible. Lets say we leave; will that help anything other than our pocketbooks? If we stay will that help anything in Iraq? I think it is no to both questions.


revel, I agree; the only choices are lose-lose. There never was a win-win in Iraq, but Bush had to start his war to help his buddies with the oil contracts.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 01:04 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:
... For me it is a difficult call. Convince me otherwise.


From a logical standpoint,

The only difference that we can see between Al Qadea and other terrorist organizations is that: AQ has had some pretty good leadership and planning, while other terrorists have not; they have been successful in their attacks, where others have not. They have been successful at eluding capture for the most part, where others have not. What should we attribute this to? I think two factors:

1, competent leadership. OBL is competent when it comes to planning. It is plainly obvious that they planned for the post-9/11 period, at least somewhat.

2, financing and support - primarily from Saudi Arabia, who has no shortage of money or shortage of hate for America.

Without attacking the source of the problem, we will not defeat AQ. We can kill their pawns all day, and they will just wait until we run out of money or patience. We should attack the source of the problems, if we intend to do anything about them.

Cycloptichorn

I wish we had some way of determining the actual locations of bin Laden, Zawahiri, and the rest of the al-Qaeda top leadership. Then we could make commando type invasions of just those sites, and capture or kill them with no need to remain any longer than necessary to complete those missions.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 01:43 pm
A REMINDER

ican711nm wrote:
We are fighting a war. These are the reasons why:

(1) We Americans probably face a sizeable risk of being murdered by Terrorist Malignancy, if we decide to limit the defense of ourselves against Terrorist Malignancy to only here in America;
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm

(2) The state of Afghanistan harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from May 1996 to October 2001, when the USA invaded Afghanistan seeking to end their sanctuary in Afghanistan;
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

(3) The state of Iraq harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from December 2001 to March 2003, when the USA invaded Iraq to end their sanctuary in Iraq;
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm


Quote:
(4) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


Congress wrote:
(5) Friday, September 14, 2001
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


Quote:
(6) Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.


Quote:
(7) Wednesday, October 16, 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and gave two primary and sufficient reasons for doing so, that were subsequently verified by the USA military:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 01:46 pm
A reminder of what, exactly?

In re: your last post,

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/27/bl-tora-bora/

It appears that we missed capturing a top AQ member in Tora Bora; probably b/c we don't have enough forces of the type you describe.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 02:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
A reminder of what, exactly?

...

Cycloptichorn

This:
Quote:
A REMINDER

We are fighting a war. These are the reasons why:
...

was in response to cice"s post:
Quote:
... Bush had to start his war to help his buddies with the oil contracts.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 02:16 pm
Quote:
Sherif Mansour
Anti-al Qaeda base envisioned

Washington Times
September 26, 2007
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070926/FOREIGN/109260030/1003

By Willis Witter - Exiled Egyptian cleric Ahmed Subhy Mansour, whose teachings have earned him dozens of death "fatwas" from fellow Muslim clerics, uses the English translation for al Qaeda ?- meaning "the base" ?- to describe a plan to defeat Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, who he says have seized control of Islam.

"Suppose you have here [in the United States] a base to counter al Qaeda in the war of ideas?" Sheik Mansour asked during a recent luncheon at The Washington Times.

"You could convince a large number ?- millions of silent Muslims. We can convince them very easily that the real enemy is not the United States. It is not Israel. The real enemy is the dictators in the Muslim world and the culture of the Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood," he said, referring to the dominant arbiters of Islamic orthodoxy in Saudi Arabia and Egypt respectively.

Sheik Mansour is the founder of a small Egyptian sect that is neither Sunni nor Shi"ite. They call themselves Quranists because they believe that the Koran represents the single authentic scripture of Islam. They especially anger Sunni Muslims by rejecting the Hadith and Sunna, purported sayings and traditions of the prophet Muhammad.

"Killing people just because they are not Muslims, they have a Hadith for this. To kill a Muslim like me after accusing him to be an 'apostate," they have a Hadith for this. To persecute the Jews, they have a Hadith for this.

"All this is garbage. It has nothing to do with Islam. It contradicts more than one-fourth of the Koranic verses," Sheik Mansour said.

A former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, he was expelled in 1987 as the Muslim equivalent of a "heretic" and was briefly imprisoned by Egyptian authorities. After subsequent waves of persecution, he finally fled Egypt just months after the September 11, 2001, attacks and received political asylum in the United States the next year.

More recently, in May and June, Egyptian authorities arrested five leaders of the movement, including Sheik Mansour"s brother, on charges of "insulting Islam" and began investigations of 15 others, with the intent, he said, to destroy the entire movement.

>From exile in the United States, he continues to attack the Islam of bin Laden and the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia that gave birth to bin Laden"s beliefs. Sheik Mansour also attacks the Islamist vision of Egypt"s Muslim Brotherhood, a group that rejects violence but shares the goal of a theocratic nationhood under Shariah, or Islamic law.

Though illegal in Egypt, the Brotherhood is allowed to operate openly in an uneasy truce with the government. Police round up its members whenever it delves too publicly in politics ?- for example, by holding anti-government demonstrations. But the Brotherhood"s interpretation of Shariah provides a benchmark for Egyptian law, which is based primarily on Shariah.

"We are not against the people. We are against this culture that will produce more and more generations of fanaticism. We go to the core of this culture and prove that it contradicts the Koran," Sheik Mansour said.

"Few Americans understand that the battle against terrorism is a war of ideas," Sheik Mansour said. "It is a war that is very different from the military in its tactics, its strategy and its weapons.

"Suicide bombings are just one aspect of this war. They brainwash young men to blow themselves up, to kill randomly. Our mission is to convince him, to undeceive them, to convince them that what he is doing is against Islam. He will lose his life and lose his afterlife as well."

Sheik Mansour claims about 10,000 followers in Egypt who accept his teachings, many of whom are part of his extended family.

"We find Islam has the same values as the West: freedom, unlimited freedom of speech, justice, equality, loving, humanity, tolerance, mercy, everything. This is our version of Islam, and we argue that this is the core of Islam according to the Koran."

He and his sons operate the Quranic Center in Northern Virginia, which includes an elaborate Internet site in Arabic and English. On its Web site at www.ahl-alquran.com <http> , the organization is republishing dozens of Sheik Mansour"s books and hundreds of articles he has written over the years.

The campaign is not without risk. One can find a sampling of fatwas, or edicts by other Muslim scholars against the Quranists, including one saying, "We have issued our commands to the soldiers of God to worship God by pouring out their blood and burning their homes."

Sheik Mansour said in response: "I do not care about my safety, but I do care about my persecuted people in Egypt."

Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute"s Institute of Religious Freedom, said arrests of the Quranists reflect an attempt by Egypt"s government to demonstrate its loyalty to Islam to fend off challenges from even more extreme Islamists who want to impose much harsher restrictions on the Arab world"s most populous nation.

"These arrests are part of the Egyptian government's double game in which it imprisons members of the Muslim Brotherhood when the latter appear to become too powerful, while simultaneously trying to appear Islamic itself and blunt the Brotherhood's appeal by cracking down on religious reformers, who are very often also democracy activists," Mr. Marshall wrote in a recent edition of the Weekly Standard.

The arrests of the Quranists received a brief mention in the latest annual report on International Religious Freedom by the State Department, which noted the arrests of five Quranists and defined the group as "a small group of Muslims who rely largely if not exclusively on the Qur'an as authoritative for Islam, to the exclusion of the prophetic traditions [Hadith] and other sources of Islamic law."

One detainee told an Egyptian human rights investigator that he was beaten and threatened with rape by one interrogator, the State Department report says.

Since arriving in the states, Sheik Mansour has held a number of academic posts. In 2002, he was a Reagan-Fascell Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, where he wrote on the roots of democracy in Islam.

Thenext year, he received a visiting fellowship at Harvard Law School"s Human Rights Program.

He also briefly met Karen P. Hughes, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, last year in the office of Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican.The meeting, Sheik Mansour said, lasted for 10 minutes, barely enough for polite introductions.

"I said: 'Please, let me sit down with you for more time. I have big plan," " he recalled. But there was no follow-up.

"We need official American help for our arrested people in Egypt," he said. "We don"t want money. We are talking about releasing our arrested people, saving the lives of scholars, bringing them to the U.S., granting them asylum to help establish this new base for moderate Islam."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 02:34 pm
Ican,

What a great article. Talk about a guy who completely gets it. I couldn't agree more with his idea.

A whole division of our counter-terrorism operation; a group whose job it is to make the lives of moderate muslims better, to extend the helping hand, to help them choose how to move forward into the next century.

There are some who say I am hopelessly idealistic for suggesting such a thing; but it doesn't have to be the only method we have at our disposal, and we will be, at our worse, attempting to use positive methods of reinforcement of our message as well as negative ones. An eminently prudent move on our part.

You know I've said before: Our culture is our cannon. Our ideas are like bullets and bombs in the minds of people all over the world. Hollywood is like a sniper; it's undeniable that our media is almost as popular around he world as it is here, and it acts as a liberalizing force for the places that need it the most; minds of young people in other countries.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 02:36 pm
I agree with the previous two posts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 03/17/2026 at 02:55:36