Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated

Or:

Don't be So Open Minded that Your Brains Fall Out

It's considered quite 'sophisticated,' or 'tolerant,' or 'intelligent,' to talk about the "continuing cycle of violence" between Israel and outfits like Hamas.

The idea behind 'open-minded' statements like that is called "moral equivalence." It's the notion that killing innocent people in a house or market is the same, morally, as destroying an ammunition dump and killing its guards in the process.

You probably won't run into that phrase, "moral equivalence," in discussions of international affairs, but it's behind a great deal of what passes for 'open-minded' and 'tolerant' discussions of "Israeli aggression" and "oppression."

" 'Moral equivalence' has been defined as 'defining distinct and conflicting moral behaviors in similar terms.' The principle of moral equivalence is behind statements like ' "all sins are equal in God's eyes," which effectively equates ethnic cleansing with stealing a pencil.' " ("Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda" (July 21, 2007))

Moral Equivalence: Your Ticket to a New, Sophisticated, Image

In Iraq, the best and brightest (their opinion) in America equated Abu Ghraib and "Saddam's torture chambers." Never mind that routine rapes, mutilations, and beatings, with the occasional mass murder, was a matter of policy under Saddam: and the Abu Ghraib scandal involved a few perverts with cameras, who got in trouble when their unsanctioned 'fun' was discovered.

My guess is that the self-styled sophisticates are already discussing the Israeli-Hamas conflict in terms of moral equivalence. And I won't be at all surprised if the United Nations Security Council, following Libya's sagacious lead, will do the same.

If you to want fit in with the 'right' sort, and display what passes for worldly wisdom, using moral equivalence as your guiding philosophy will help. I'd rather assume that taking photos of naked prisoners isn't quite the same as attempted genocide, and that bombing a market isn't equivalent to destroying a military facility, but you'll have to make up your own mind.

Related posts:

• "Hamas Facing Logical Consequences: And the Jews Are to Blame"
  (January 3, 2009)
• "Looting in the News: Rape, Pillage, and the America Way"
  (November 24, 2008)
• "Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda"
  (July 21, 2007)
• "Haditha, Iraq; My Lai, Vietnam: This Isn't the Good Old Days"
  (July 13, 2008)

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

More Good Advice for Barack Obama: From Islamist Groups This Time

President-Elect Barack Obama has no shortage of advice.

Yesterday, we learned that Iran's President Ahmadinejad told Obama that "...the expectation is that the unjust actions of the past 60 years..." will be end, and that "...The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region...."

Today, it's the Islamic State of Iraq's own Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, "urging the 'new rulers of the White House' and presidential allies from 'Christian nations' to remove their forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim regions." (CNN)

Sounds like Abu Omar al-Baghdadi wants Obama to 'give peace a chance.'

I'm dubious about al-Baghdadi's advice. For starters, it looks like the "Islamic State of Iraq" is a sort of front for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi says he's the leader of the "Islamic State of Iraq." The American military says he's an actor, who gives the "Islamic State of Iraq" a voice.

Al-Baghdadi offered some hardly-surprising insights:

• The global financial crisis happened because of wars "launched in Muslim countries"
• Western civilization is
  • "Nothing but a civilization made of cardboard"
  • Built on gambling and usury
  • "Robbed" Muslim lands
  • "Oppressed" the residents of Muslim lands

Sounds like Professor Churchill would love this guy.

A Sunni insurgent group, the Mujahedeen Army, had advice for President-Elect Obama, too: Get troops out of Iraq. Now. Or else Obama will face "days that will be more difficult than the nightmare experienced by his predecessor."

The Associated Press says, "Obama has called for an increase in forces in Afghanistan and a withdraw of combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, but said that the time period wasn't rigid and could be adjusted."

It's Different, When You're in Charge

I've said it before: Things look different when you finally get to sit behind the desk.

I think there's a good chance that President Barack Obama will recognize this advice from President Ahmadinejad, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, and the Mujahedeen Army for what it is: more standard-issue propaganda from people I'd rather call Islamist than Islamic.

At least, I hope so.

In the news:

• "Insurgents to Obama: Pull troops from Iraq"
  Associate Press (November 7, 2008)
• "Militant's message to 'new White House' "
  CNN (November 7, 2008)

American Soldiers Gun Down Iraqi City Councilman While Neighbors Look On

Technically, that's accurate, but it isn't the whole story. This post is going to discuss how a story can be accurate, as far as it goes, and still leave a false impression.

Here's the real headline, and first paragraph:

" Officials: Iraqi councilman kills U.S. soldiers"
CNN (June 23, 2008)

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi city council member opened fire on U.S. forces outside Baghdad on Monday, killing two soldiers, U.S. officials said."

Oh, wait: it's American officials who make that claim. It must be lies, to cover up the murder of a city councilman.

Keep reading:

" Two U.S. soldiers were killed in a small arms fire attack near Salman Pak early Monday afternoon, the U.S. military said in a statement. Three others soldiers and an interpreter were wounded, the statement said, which added that soldiers killed the gunman.

"The attack happened as the soldiers were leaving the Salman Pak Nahia Council building, the military said.

"An Iraqi Interior Ministry official said the incident happened after U.S. soldiers and local officials had attended a ceremony to open a park in al-Madaen, also known as Salman Pak.

"After the soldiers entered al-Madaen's city council building, a city council member opened fire on the soldiers with an AK-47, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.

"The U.S. forces returned fire, killing the city council member, according to two Interior Ministry officials.

" 'The attacker came out of his car with an AK-47 rifle in his hand and started firing on the American soldiers until he was killed by the return fire,' said Hussein al-Dulaimi, 37, who owns an agricultural machine shop across the street, according to The Associated Press.

Al-Madaen is located about 25 miles (40 km) southeast of Baghdad's city center...."

The rest of the article is a digest of recent violence in Iraq, including a mortar attack that killed 10 members of Awakening Councils.

I think the description of Awakening Councils is interesting: "... U.S.-allied predominantly Sunni fighters, known as the Awakening Councils or Sons of Iraq. ... Awakening Councils, also called "Concerned Local Citizen" groups, are comprised of mostly Sunni fighters who have turned on al Qaeda in Iraq."

Now it's "predominantly" and "mostly" Sunni fighters. Last week, CNN claimed that they were "Sunni" - and left it at that. I prefer my news to be a little more accurate, when it comes to details.

Now, Awakening Councils as "mostly Sunni Fighters." Okay. But that gives the impression that the Awakening Councils are primarily a set of military units.

I've discussed Iraq's Awakening Councils before, including

• "Ten Iraqi Sheiks Kidnapped: Who's Promoting Islam Here?"
  (October 28, 2007)
• "Stressed-Out by Iraq? You're Not the Only One"
  (September 16, 2007)

While respectful of the militant spirit of these sheiks who got tired of Al Qaeda ruining their country, I think that their position in Iraqi society is more that of administrators and consultants, than warriors.

Of course, the Awakening Councils have armed members: as cautious analysts have pointed out. But to characterize all members of Awakening Councils as 'mostly Sunni fighters' seems to be at best an oversimplification.

It's In the News, It Must be True, Right?

I don't think that news services publish outright lies. Not usually, not intentionally, not in the western world.

However, I think that for whatever reason, some facts are brought to the surface of some stories, others left deep in the barrel, and some removed entirely.

What's left is true, as far as it goes, but may not give an accurate impression.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri Free: Some Other Guy Arrested

Abu Ayyub al-Masri wasn't captured yesterday in Mosul.

And, it looks like my notion that wishful thinking was involved may not be that far off ("Abu Ayyub al-Masri: Captured (Again), Maybe, This Time in Mosul" (May 9, 2008).

Iraqi police apparently picked up a man with a similar name, and then an Iraqi commander became "convinced that he had arrested al-Masri".

" 'Neither coalition forces nor Iraqi security forces detained or killed Abu Ayyub al-Masri. This guy had a similar name,' said Maj. Peggy Kageleiry, a U.S. military spokeswoman in northern Iraq. She said no additional details were being immediately provided.

"Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said the confusion arose because the commander of Iraqi forces in northern Ninevah province was convinced that he had arrested al-Masri — also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir." (" (International Herald Tribune (May 9, 2008))

This sort of thing happens. Remember, in the months immediately after 9/11, how bin Laden conscious people were? I remember a minor news item from that period, about someone in Europe who had stopped a shipment because the word "LADEN" was on it. My German is rusty, but I think that means "load." Not a particularly odd word to find on a load of goods from Germany: but mistakes happen.

And, I think that's something to remember here. Mistakes happen. People tend to see, hear, and read what they want to see, hear, and read. Even if it isn't so.

I'm not happy to learn that an Iraqi commander seems to have trouble sorting out facts presented to him. But, it does happen. And, maybe with Iraq in the global spotlight, Iraqi leadership will decide that it's in their interests to develop procedures for processing information - and prisoners - and stop acting like the clueless third-world leaders that were popular stereotypes decades ago, before America became sensitive to the feelings those who run alternatively-advantaged countries.

finally, a lesson for everyone:

1. Check Facts
2. Then make statement

More, at

• "US military denies Iraq report of al-Qaida arrest"
  Associated Press (May 9, 2008).
• " AP News in Brief"
  International Herald Tribune (May 9, 2008)

Abu Ayyub al-Masri: Captured (Again), Maybe, This Time in Mosul

Iraqi police captured Abu Ayyub al-Masri in Mosul Thursday.

Abu Al-Masri, is also called Abu Hamza al-Muhajer. Whatever his name is, he took control of Al Qaeda in Iraq after an American missile killed the previous Al Qaeda boss there, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in June of 2006.

Since taking control of Al Qaeda in Iraq, if my count is right, Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been captured three times, including today's arrest, mortally wounded once, and killed three times.

According to various Iraqi officials.

This time, Iraqi officials say that Abu Ayyub al-Masri is already in American custody. Maybe, but "U.S. military officials could only say on the record they had nothing to confirm the report." ("Iraqis report capture of al Qaeda in Iraq leader" (CNN (May 8, 2008))

As CNN put it, "Iraqi officials have also misreported the deaths or capture of other high-ranking insurgents, Baathists or others, including al-Zarqawi before he was killed and Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the highest ranking former member of Saddam Hussein's regime still at large."

I could be wrong about this, but I've gotten the impression that officials in several parts of the world, including the Middle East, tend to report what they'd like to have happened as what actually happened. Iraq's leaders seem to have the same difficulty in distinguishing between desire and fact.

The Iraqi (state-run) press has already reported Abu Ayyub al-Masri capture. This time, the Iraqi officials may be right.

The American military is checking the reports out. Given how recently the arrest is supposed to have taken place, Abu Al-Masri could be in American custody, without the information having filtered up to the top brass yet.

Or, this could be another case of wishful thinking trumping hard fact.

If it's true, then Al Qaeda in Iraq is short a top leader - again. That's not good for Al Qaeda, but it would be good for Iraq - and for America, in the long run. If or when Iraq becomes a stable, prosperous, country, organizations like Al Qaeda will have lost another base of operations.

More at

• "Iraqi army says Iraqi al-Qaida leader arrested"
  Associated Press (May 8, 2008)
• " Leader of al-Qaida in Iraq arrested in Mosul, Iraqi defense ministry says"
  International Herald Tribune (May 8, 2008)

More - What Else? - Dreadful News from Iraq

About a week ago, the Iraqi government decided to attack the Mehdi Army, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's enforcers. Last Friday, a major news network told America how things are going.

I don't think anyone was surprised at the headline: "Analysis: Iraqis' Basra fight not going well"
CNN (March 28, 2008)

The body of the analysis was routine, too. Excerpts:

"The Iraqi military push into the southern city of Basra is not going as well as American officials had hoped, despite President Bush's high praise for the operation, several U.S. officials said Friday. ...."

"The president also hailed the operation as a sign of progress, emphasizing that the decision to mount the offensive was al-Maliki's."

"But since the beginning of the government offensive four days ago, violence also has picked up in a wide area of southern Iraq, including in Baghdad's International Zone -- also known as the Green Zone -- which has been targeted by rocket and mortar attacks."

Familiar Pattern: Military Force Doesn't Work

I recognize the pattern of thought, or association: America (or, in this case, a surrogate for America)

• Faces threat from armed and ideologically driven force
• Ignores opportunities to continue negotiations, talks, and talks about negotiations
• Decides to use military force against the armed ideologues
• The armed ideologues fight back
• Thus proving the dangers of using military force

Even today's headline isn't hopeful, once you read the article:

"Al-Sadr calls off fighting, orders compliance with Iraqi security"
CNN (March 30, 2008)

"Al-Sadr calls off fighting?" That sounds like good news. The first four paragraphs show that there's a catch:

1. "Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on followers to stop shooting and cooperate with Iraqi security forces Sunday, a move Iraq's government praised as a step toward ending six days of fighting that has left hundreds dead.
2. " 'We announce our disavowal from anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices,' al-Sadr said in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
3. "The statement was accompanied by demands that the Iraqi government issue a general amnesty to his followers and release any being held. The statement was distributed across Iraq and posted on the Internet.
4. "The move was welcomed by Iraq's government, whose forces have been fighting al-Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, in six days of clashes with so-called "outlaws" who had taken control of much of the southern city of Basra. U.S. and coalition troops have been supporting the Iraqi offensive."

That's right: not surrender, another cease-fire.

And, the cease-fire is curiously limited. al-Sadr says his enforcers won't hit government institutions, charities and political party offices. That leaves a lot of potential targets.

Military Force, America, Iraq, and a Dangerous Cleric

So, the Iraqi government's use of military force is a failure, right?

Not necessarily.

Here's another analysis, from an international source, published today.

"New Shiite battle is a marked shift from the past"
International Herald Tribune (March 30, 2008)

This discusses the situation two days after the first analysis, but I think there's more than the developments of 48 hours involved here.

Excerpt:

"For starters, the Shiite rebels are mainly fighting Iraqi soldiers, not American 'infidels.' Their leader, Moktada al-Sadr [!], is not defending against attacks from a redoubt inside the country's most sacred shrine, but is issuing orders with a tarnished reputation from an undisclosed location. And Iraq's prime minister, a Shiite who Americans had all but despaired would ever act against militias of his own sect, is taking them on fiercely.

"The differences represent a shift in the war, whose early years were punctuated by uprisings against Americans by a vast, devoted group of Sadr's followers, who were largely respected by Shiites. As their tactics veered into protection rackets, oil smuggling and other scams, Sadr's followers began to resemble Mafia thugs more than religious warriors, splintering and forming their own gangs and networks, many beyond Sadr's direct control."

Military force isn't the only factor here. Muqtada al-Sadr made the same sort of mistake Al Qaeda did: bullying the people he depends on for support. But military had an effect.

Anti-War Enthusiasts Notwithstanding, There's Hope

Something like the al-Sadr/Basra situation happened last year.

Then, tribal leaders, fed up with Al Qaeda's treatment of Iraqis, formed groups like the Anbar Awakening. Meanwhile:

• The Surge made performing acts of terrorism inconvenient, at best
• Demonstrated to Iraqis and the Iraqi government that
  • The coalition was able and willing to act against terrorists
  • Military action against terrorists was possible, and produced terrorists who were no longer able to terrorize

I think that there's a lesson or two here.

• Military force can stop bad people from doing bad things
• The surge worked
  • Giving the Iraqi military time to prepare for action
  • Showing that terrorists can be defeated
• Diplomacy, defined here as unending talks, isn't effective against someone who doesn't want to give up

Finally, here's a pair of observations, and a thought.

Tribal leaders in Iraq, at considerable personal risk, formed organizations like the Anbar Awakening. As a result, Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists now have a much harder time spreading death and destruction.

A religious leader, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army, can reasonably be defined as a terrorist/crime lord and his enforcers.

Religious leaders have their place in any culture. That place is not a secular leaders.

CAIR Connection in Congressional Baghdad Trip Politely Ignored

Don't look for this in traditional, mainstream media.

"Ex-CAIR chief indicted for 'Baghdad Jim' junket"
World Net Daily (March 27, 2008)

A former head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan branch, Muthanna Al-Hanooti, an Iraqi-American, was indicted yesterday. He's accused of setting up a visit by three congressmen.

That's not what got him indicted. It's that he

• Set up a visit to Baghdad
• During the run-up to the war
• Got money for the visit from
  Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency
• And was paid with 2 million barrels of oil
  by Iraqi intelligence officials

I'm no expert, but that does look suspicious.

What strikes me is not that an American organization's former chief would covertly subvert the 'Oil for Food' program, to the tune of two billion dollars gross, and launder Saddam Hussein's money to pay for a little trip to Baghdad.

It's that the organization is a major civil rights advocacy group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): and that none of the mainstream national news media is mentioning the fact. Not even to absolve CAIR of any connection.

That could be a remarkable case of polite reticence. Or it could be a case of news media not wanting to appear biased, or racist, or to be engaged in Islamophobia. I'm inclined to favor the second possibility. There's reason to believe that news media in America, and globally, print all the news they feel like printing.

The end users of Hussein's largess were U.S. Representatives

• Jim McDermott (Washington)
• David Bonior (Michigan)
• Mike Thompson (California)

There's no published evidence that they knew who was bankrolling their trip.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Baghdad, Iraq: A Map, a Strategy, and Being Right

A hand-drawn map, made by the late Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, didn't get destroyed in time. It showed up in an Al Qaeda safe house almost a year ago, giving American military planners details on how Al Qaeda controlled Baghdad.

That helped force Al Qaeda out of Baghdad, to Baquba. And, into the desert, where they were even more vulnerable.

Here's a copy of the map (.pdf): "Battle of the Baghdad Belt."

The troop surge, announced January 10, involved more than just dropping more American troops into Iraq. Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno decided to make a risky move. Instead of keeping American forces concentrated in relatively defensible main base camps, they sent American soldiers to small patrol stations. Iraqis and Americans served together in these stations, so the Americans were essentially living among the citizens of Baghdad.

This arrangement made American troops easier targets, but it also put them where they could communicate with Iraqis. Iraqis learned to trust the Americans, and American troops began getting useful intelligence from the Iraqis.

The strategy seems to have worked. The New York Times says that the rate of suicide bombings in Baghdad is half what it was last summer, other forms of violence are down, and people in Baghdad are, for the first time in two years, able to move freely around their city.

I think this shows what can happen, when American leaders accept the idea that military force can be part of a successful foreign policy, and that it's possible for the American military to communicate with their counterparts, and with civilians, in other countries.

It may still be too early to talk about victory in Iraq, but what's been happening in and around Baghdad is certainly good news.

Facts from
"Zarqawi Map Aided Successes Against Iraqi Insurgency" (November 20, 2007)
"Baghdad’s Weary Start to Exhale as Security Improves" (November 20, 2007)

Iraqi Imams Declare Al Qaeda False Holy Warriors

Imams setting off violence by making proclamations in mosques is just another example of Islamic fanaticism, right?

Not this time.

Near Samara, in northern Iraq, imams stated that Al Qaeda should be expelled from the area. They said that members of Al Qaeda were false mujahadeens, or false holy warriors. Fighting broke out after that, killing 16 terrorists.

Ideally, after being identified as false holy warriors, the Al Qaeda fighters would have had a sort of epiphany and renounced terrorism: somewhat along the lines of Jamal al-Badawi in Yemen, but with more plausibility.

That didn't happen, but there are at least 16 of Al Qaeda who won't kill again.

And, there's another part of the Islamic world where imams have spoken out against Al Qaeda.

I'd say this is good news.

Elsewhere in Iraq, responsibility for handling security has been handed off to the Iraqi government or the Kurdish regional government in seven provinces. Karbala will be the eighth province this Monday.

That makes eight handed off, ten to go.

Provinces handed off to Iraqi control:

• 2006
  • Muthanna
  • Dhi Qar
  • Najaf
• 2007
  • Maysan
  • Dahuk (1)
  • Irbil (1)
  • Sulaimaniyah (1)
  • Karbala

(1) The Kurdish regional government controls these provinces.

President Bush said that security for all the provinces would be in Iraqi hands by November. That isn't going to happen.

This post has two purposes.

1. Point out that there has been real progress. It hasn't happened as fast as I'd like, but it's still good news.
2. Briefly discuss reality, editors, and what we see in the news.

I do not think there is some sort of conspiracy to slant the news. In fact, the Associated Press article I took this information from was relatively even-handed about presenting facts.

However, Iraqi imams preaching against Al Qaeda, and a steady progression of Iraqi provinces being turned over to Iraqi authorities is not the emphasis of the article.

These three paragraphs, leading the article, set the tone. And, for someone skimming through the news, it might be all that was read.

"U.S. forces will turn over security to Iraqi authorities in the southern Shiite province of Karbala on Monday, the American commander for the area said, despite fighting between rival militia factions that has killed dozens.

"Karbala will become only the eighth of Iraq's 18 provinces to revert to Iraqi control, despite President Bush's prediction in January that the Iraqi government would have responsibility for security in all of the provinces by November.

"But the target date has slipped repeatedly, highlighting the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in areas still troubled by daily violence."

Take a look at these phrases:

• "...despite fighting between rival militia factions that has killed dozens."
• "...only the eighth of Iraq's 18 provinces"
• "...despite President Bush's prediction in January that the Iraqi government would have responsibility for security in all of the provinces by November."

Biased?

One argument is that the AP has merely presented the facts. Just facts. And, that it's mere happenstance that a discussion of White House failures and a death toll of dozens leads the article.

Another is that those "despite," "only," "despite" phrases are intended to denigrate American accomplishments in Iraq, and emphasize the problems that still exist.

Take your pick.

Beheading Iraqis: Not Al Qaeda's Brightest Idea

What happens when you try to bomb and behead your way into the hearts and minds of a country?

In the case of Iraq, you get Osama bin Laden criticizing his followers. In a public forum. And, more to the point, a lot of angry, determined, Iraqi sheiks.

Taking a look at what doesn't make the headlines, it's obvious that American leaders and the rest of the coalition have much less time to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat than headlines suggest.

The commanding officer of Regimental Combat Team-6, Colonel Richard Simcock, recently said, "... we get all sorts of congressional visitors who are looking for the 'Anbar' story, and let me tell you what I tell them: we are winning, but we have not yet won." [emphasis is mine]

Colonel Simcock made that statement in "Interview with Col. Richard Simcock," on military.com: ("Benefiting the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard").

The Iraq he described, at least Fallujah and the rest of the Anbar Province, is not the bomb-ravaged, fanatic-infested, America-hating, hopeless case that we've heard so much about.

The Iraqis he deals with sound a lot like most of the people I know, here in America:

"Q -- What do the local citizens want -- either from their mayor or from us?
A -- They want the same things in Fallujah as we have in America; health care, education, and technology. They want good schools, markets with food and stuff to buy, along with electricity to run their computers, air conditioners, and businesses."

The assassination of Sheik Sattar Abu Rishi (also Latinized as Sheik Sattar Abu Risha) had an effect: but not the one Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) intended.

Colonel Simcock said, "... they are not intimidated. They saw it as a very tragic event.

"It had the opposite effect that AQI wanted. AQI's message was “Look what happens when you work with the Americans, you wind up dead.” That is not what I am getting from the sheiks that I work with in AO Raleigh, it is just the opposite. They are saddened, but they are angry and makes them work with more energy to get to the same end state that we are trying to reach."

---

I strongly recommend reading all of "Interview with Col. Richard Simcock." Particularly if you've just heard the latest car bombing scores.

---

Doing research for this post, I ran into some unfamiliar acronyms used by the American military, and their definitions, from mytroops.com and michaeltotten.com:

AQI	Al Qaeda in Iraq
AO	Area of Operations
IA	Iraqi Army
IP	Iraqi Police
ISF	Iraqi Security Forces
MiTT	Military Transition Team

Osama bin Laden: Something Old, Something New

Excerpts from Osama bin Laden's latest audio tape played on Al-Jazeera television yesterday: along with a still photo of the Islamic philosopher and apparent spiritual leader of Al Qaeda.

There was a surprise in the excerpts, and something that wasn't so surprising.

First, the non-surprise.

"It is the duty of the people of Islam in the Sudan and its environs, especially the Arabian Peninsula, to perform jihad against the Crusader invaders and wage armed rebellion to remove those who let them in," a translation and transcript provided by IntelCenter. (Hats off to the Boston Herald for telling where they got the information. IntelCenter monitors extremist Web sites.)

Bin Laden is talking about U.N. 'peacekeepers' in Darfur, trying to slow down the genocide there. This 'death to the peacekeepers' thing is hardly news. Bin Laden deputy, Ayman al-Zawhiri, did a jihad cal for Darfur in a September 20 video. Bin Laden
did about the same thing back in 2006, telling his followers to fight a proposed U.N. force in Sudan.

Another tape, another jihad: Not really news.

An article in the Sudan Tribune pointed out something unusual in the latest audio recording released by bin Laden. "In the sections of the message broadcast Monday, bin Laden took the highly uncharacteristic step of acknowledging that al-Qaida had made mistakes and chiding followers for not uniting their ranks — a reference to the squabbles among various insurgent groups in Iraq.

" 'Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes,' " he said. "Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahideen have to correct their mistakes."

Osama bin Laden's very unusual criticism of his followers may be more than "the squabbles among various insurgent groups in Iraq." It could be that Al Qaeda and company in Iraq did such an effective job bombing and beheading their way out of the hearts and minds of Iraqis, that bin Laden believed that a public reprimand was called for.

It's not good news for Al Qaeda, when an AP article says, "October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists."

Major General Rick Lynch pointed out that Shiites and Sunnis have joined Americans in defending Iraq: 20,000 "Concerned Citizens" in the past four months.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

America, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban: Who's on Your Side?

Good for Poland. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, that country's prime minister, said Poland would not retreat "in the face of terrorists."

That declaration came after Poland's ambassador to Iraq was burned over 20% of his body. Not seriously, and he's expected to live, but it was unpleasant. The ambassador's convoy was hit with three bombs and gunfire in what the Iraqi Foreign Ministry called a "criminal assassination attempt" aimed at "damaging the strong relations between Iraq and Poland."

Meanwhile, Naif Jassim Mohammed, an Iraqi lawmaker and part of Iraq's biggest Sunni bloc, seems to have been at a meeting of suspected Al Qaeda in Iraq fighters. Then U.S. and Iraqi troops detained him.

And, south of Baghdad, the town of Iskandariyah needs a new mayor. Their old one was blown up, along with four of his bodyguards, on his way to work. Mayor Abbas Hassan Hamza was a member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.

On the other side of Baghdad, Sheik Muawiya Naji Jbara died after a roadside bomb went off next to his convoy. The Sheik had been on his way to support anti-Al Qaeda fighters southwest of Samarra. Sheik Muawiya Naji Jbara was the head of the Salahuddin Tribal Awakening Council.

Back in America, while Iraqis are dying to get their country sorted out, almost one in five people in one party think the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq. My guess is that they think Iraqis are being killed because Yankees are there, and that the unpleasantness would stop if American and other coalition forces left.

I'm pretty sure that Al Qaeda, particularly Al Aqeda in Iraq, would be happy to see the coalition go. And that the same could be said for some of the people in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is part of the world where rape victims are killed, by their relatives, because they brought shame on their families. The idea of honor killings seems odd to many Americans, but it's a sincerely-held belief for many in and around the Middle East.

Release of "The Kite Runner," has been delayed to December 14 while Zekiria Ebrahimi, Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada and Ali Danish Bakhty Ari, three boys appearing in the film, are evacuated from Kabul. It's a reasonable precaution, in a country where rape victims are killed.

Actually, I think that the possibility that the boys whose rape is depicted in the film might be killed demonstrates that Middle Eastern cultures and beliefs are much more egalitarian that thought.

Although the subjects of honor killings are generally thought of as female, it's clear that people of either sex can be killed to un-shame a family.

That's a fine example of equal rights.

So what?

The war on terror is about a conflict between two radically opposed cultures.

• One defends freedom, allowing people a considerable range of choice in how they live their lives. This is the side that America leads.
• The other kills rape victims, and recently hung a teenage boy because he had American dollars. The boy had been in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan. Helmand leads Afghani provinces in violence, and is a major poppy producer. A district police chief said, "The Taliban warned villagers that they would face the same punishment if they were caught with dollars."

Personally, I'd rather live here in America, in what Ward Churchill, late of Colorado University, called a "fascist state".

At least here, he gets paid for saying things like that, instead of paying with his life.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

"Muslims Against Sharia" Put Money Where Their Mouth Is

Mr. Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist, published a very rude cartoon recently, depicting the prophet Mohammed in a very disrespectful way.

So, Al Qaeda in Iraq is offering upwards of $100,000 USD to anyone who kills Mr. Vilks.

Al Qaeda members may be mostly Muslims, but not all Muslims are aligned with Al Qaeda. Muslims Against Sharia says they're nowhere near to being on bin Laden's page, and they're putting money where their mouth is. Here's a quote, repeated from my "Swedish Dog Displays Blasphemous Images" post of September 19.

"Muslims Against Sharia praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq. Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

"Muslimer mot Sharia berömmer Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Torbjörn Larsson och övriga anställda på Nerikes Allehanda och Dagens Nyheter för deras tapperhet och fördömer hotet från Abu Omar Al Baghdadi och Islamistiska Iraq. Muslimer mot Sharia betalar 100 000 SEK (ca 15 000$) för information som leder till gripande eller oskadligörande av Abu Omar Al Baghdadi."

Let's remember: Islam is far from uniform; Muslims are not all alike.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Swedish Dog Displays Blasphemous Images

Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist with a price on his head, showed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad to a seminar in Stockholm on yesterday.

Why that "Swedish Dog" term in the headline? It's how "Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي refers to the Swedish cartoonist.

"Nobody has really seen this image and it has just become more and more impossible to show it, so I thought that ordinary people should be given the possibility to see it live," he told the 100 or so people at a seminar.

I wonder what number Mr. Vilks considers "nobody." The cartoon, or one very much like the famous one, is displayed on his website.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is offering upwards of $100,000 USD to anyone who kills Mr. Vilks. One of the under-reported aspects of this is how Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been corrupted. I'd have thought that more people would be shocked at how western they're acting: offering money, rather than appealing to jihadic zeal.

I hope that Mr. Vilks, and others involved in this cartoon's publication, take care of themselves. Islamic enthusiasts aren't particularly noted taking insults lightly.

Remember Theo van Gogh? A Muslim killed him after Mr. van Gogh made a film, "Submission," that followers of Islam didn't like. Muslims had good reason for disapproving of the film. At best, Muslim women in the film, whose "chadors and gowns are transparent," make the movie insulting.

However, Michael Moore has offended conservatives and some Christians in America, and he's still very much alive.

Back to Mr. Vilks and his appalling diplomatic skills.

An earlier post, "Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!" discussed the Swedish cartoonist's drawing and how some Muslims reacted. Happily, a group I hadn't heard of, Muslims Against Sharia, posted a comment on that post. I'm taking the liberty of quoting their comment.

"Muslims Against Sharia praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq. Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

"Muslimer mot Sharia berömmer Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Torbjörn Larsson och övriga anställda på Nerikes Allehanda och Dagens Nyheter för deras tapperhet och fördömer hotet från Abu Omar Al Baghdadi och Islamistiska Iraq. Muslimer mot Sharia betalar 100 000 SEK (ca 15 000$) för information som leder till gripande eller oskadligörande av Abu Omar Al Baghdadi."

It's my opinion that Islam is going through a very interesting time in its history. Muslims have very serious decisions to make. But, that's for another post.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Death to the Cartoonist! Death to Swedish Dog!

First, and very importantly: I'm not suggesting that Lars Vilks be killed. I'm not suggesting that any cartoonist be killed.

But others have a different point of view.

"Video: Al Qaeda Offers Bounty for Swedish Cartoonist" The guest author in this video clip has some very interesting point. WARNING: This video clip is from Fox News. It has not been passed by the editorial board of "The New York Times," and has not been approved by the ACLU. Viewer discretion is advised.

Al Qaeda, Iraq, has raised the price on Lars Vilks' head to $150,000 USD, provided certain conditions are met. Al Qaeda, Iraq, also offers additional $50,000 USD for the life of an editor involved in publishing the cartoon.

I agree that drawing a picture of a dog with Mohammed's face is in very poor taste. In fact, I'd call it tacky.

I can sympathize with the distaste Muslims feel at seeing such a cartoon. It must be like the revulsion I feel, as a devout Catholic, each time an "irreverent" anti-Catholic cartoon shows up. Particularly since "irreverent" is praise in this culture, when discussing 'critically acclaimed' work.

However, I'd never suggest that anti-Catholic cartoonists and editors be killed. In fact, I'm forbidden from that sort of action.

Al Qaeda, Iraq, and and other jihadist organizations, do not seem to have such inhibitions.

What's happening to Lars Vilks shows what we'll enjoy, if these religious fanatics have their way. It's obvious that cartoonists, and anyone else with opinions which deviate from what Islamic fundamentalists believe, will lose their rights to free speech: and, most likely, their heads.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Does Anyone Really Believe Censorship Isn't Happening?

Lars Vilks published cartoons, showing the prophet Mohammed (first strike) in a disrespectful way (second strike) in July, 2007. Now, Al Qaeda in Iraq is offering $100,000USD for the head of Lars Vilks (yer out!).

It reminds me of May, 2006, when Muslims were offended by other cartoons. Some headlines then were "Al-Qaeda Threatens 3 EU States over Mohammed Cartoons," and, showing great compassion, " Algeria cartoon publishers jailed." The latter news account said that "according to Algerian law, both journalists now face between three and five years in jail for 'insulting the prophet'." The article was quite calm. I'm glad the journalists didn't lose their heads.

The 2006 flap was over cartoons in a Danish paper, re-published in Norway and elsewhere. All twelve cartoons are displayed in the Brussles Journal's "Danish Imams Propose to End Cartoon Dispute." The Journal's slogan is "defending freedom of speech in Europe."

As of early 2006, the imam's idea of ending the "cartoon dispute" involving Jywallands-Posten, the infidel paper which posted the cartoons was that "Jyllands-Posten admit that publishing the cartoons was wrong and make amends for it." In a way, the demand is very moderate, assuming that no beheadings are involved in making "amends."

As a devout Catholic, I'd be satisfied if all anti-Catholic cartoons were so restrained and polite as the ones the imams were fussing about.

Back to Lars Vilk.

Samples from the latest cartoon flap are displayed (as of today's date) at Wikipedia's "Lars Vilks Muhammad cartoons controversy"

I'll admit that portraying a Mohammed with a dog's body is quite disrespectful. But, as an American, I'm used to seeing over-the-top depictions of leaders and cultural icons.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has a different attitude. "Al Qaeda: $100G To Kill Swedish Cartoonist" was the way WCBSTV.com put it. "The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq offered money for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist who recently produced images deemed insulting to Islam and promised a new offensive in Iraq during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in a statement carried by Islamist Web sites Saturday."

While looking for these anti-Islam cartoons, I found a very helpful page. It included links to the "Swedish Dog," sites which published the 2006 cartoons, and a list of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Mohammad cartoons.

Here's an excerpt.

"Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي

"Islamic Studies دراسات اسلامية
14 سبتمبر, 2007
حرية التعبير والإساءة إلى رسول الإسلام
(The Arabic phrase after the date translates as
"Freedom of expression and offend the Prophet of Islam" (World Star Dictionaries, Translators and Encyclopedias, and Google translation service))

"http://www.vilks.net Lars Vilks Cartoons :: Swedish Dog Mohamed Cartoon Draws.

"http://www.vilks.net الموقع الخاص بالفنان الذي رسم محمد ("The relative to site the artist who Mohammed drew" (systransoft.com)")

"http://www.vilks.net/?p=936 Lars Vilks Cartoons :: Swedish Dog Mohamed Cartoon Draws."

And so on. "Swedish Dog" is repeated fairly often.

Reading "Islamic World News أخبار العالم الاسلامي", remember that this, unlike sites and blogs which criticize Islam, is not a hate site, and does not promote violence or racism.

Meanwhile, is Australia, Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace, is a non-Muslim who disapproved of pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot being convicted of inciting "hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of" Muslims.

The infidel preachers claim that "they had merely informed Christians about Islamic teachings, based on the Koran and other Islamic texts."

Wallace said that the finding against the pastors probably meant that Australians

It's hard to for me to verify any of this, since most of the online references to both Wallace and the Mohammed cartoons matter have been removed from the Web, or been re-edited.

Having grown up in a country which supports free speech, I have misgivings about censorship, and regard propaganda skeptically.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.