Imam Shoots and Kills Two Americans

[SF-TX]

May 3, 2009
Imam at Iraqi army training centre mosque shoots and kills two American GI's

There is no reliable way to distinguish a "moderate" from an "extremist," given the deep roots within Islamic texts and teachings of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism, and given the fact that no Islamic sect or school of jurisprudence has declared Osama bin Laden's understanding of Islam to be un-Islamic. Here is more proof of the correctness of that observation.

Also, note that once again it was an Islamic cleric who committed violence against unbelievers, once again apparently missing the true, peaceful teachings of Islam that should have led him toward a more pacifistic, Gandhiesque line of resistance against those whom he regarded as occupiers of his homeland.

"Two American soldiers shot dead by uniformed Iraqi: US," from AFP, May 2 (thanks to Doc Washburn):

Two American soldiers were shot dead and three more were wounded on Saturday when an Iraqi wearing army uniform opened fire on them south of the northern town of Mosul, the US military said.

"According to initial reports, an individual dressed in an Iraqi army uniform fired on the Coalition forces and was killed in the incident" around 20 kilometres (12 miles) south of Mosul, the statement said.

It called the incident "a small arms fire attack at a combat outpost."

A Mosul police officer identified the assailant as Hassan al-Dulaimi, a soldier who also served as the imam of a mosque at an Iraqi army training centre south of the city, the capital of Nineveh province....

Posted by Robert at May 3, 2009 3:51 AM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025942.php

[Puertoland]

RIP to those Americans who lost their lives in this incident.

As for the scumbag. I'm glad he got what he deserved, its a shame it was already too late.

[redleg99]

First, I’ll join with others here in mourning the loss of our soldiers.

However, I would like to address some of the conclusions drawn form this incident.

There is no reliable way to distinguish a "moderate" from an "extremist," given the deep roots within Islamic texts and teachings of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism, and given the fact that no Islamic sect or school of jurisprudence has declared Osama bin Laden's understanding of Islam to be un-Islamic.

I agree with the first part of your statement. I think, though, that you can say the same things about criminals in general: it’s difficult to know who is going to be a criminal until they have committed a crime.

I don’t dispute either that there are some egregious things written in the Qur'an, and that Jihadis will cite these as justification for their actions.

With respect, I disagree with the idea that no Muslim has repudiated either the violence of the Jihadis or the jurisprudence upon which it is based. I offered some evidence for this in another post * as well some reasons why that evidence might be difficult to find in the western media. Having thought about it some more, I’ll add another reason: I’m willing to bet that Islamic scholars who repeatedly and publicly denounce Jihadis will often end up dying prematurely.

But every now and then, you can find something. For example, following the February, 2006 bombing of the Al ‘Askariyya Mosque in Samarra, this appeared in Al Jazeera:

Major Sunni groups joined in condemning the attack. The Association of Muslim Scholars called the bombing a criminal act, while the Sunni Endowment, a government organisation that cares for Sunni mosques and shrines, sent a delegation to Samarra to investigate.**

There is also this one, from a few days before the bombing:

Hundreds of Iraqi citizens poured into the streets of Samarra on Tuesday in a massive demonstration against Al Qaeda. Most estimated the crowd to numbering between 700 and 1,000.

The protest, organized by two major Sunni groups, the Iraqi Islamic Party and Muslim Scholars Association, blamed Al Qaeda for the deaths of some 40 Iraqi police recruits last week, according to Reuters, and condemned other attacks by the group. ***

So what does all this prove? I think it says that there are divisions among Muslims, and that any given Muslim is not necessarily a Jihadi. Based on this, I think this creates an opportunity for us in our current war that we can exploit. Admittedly, this is not risk-free, and as you noted, there are costs for doing this. However, I would submit to you that pursuing a policy which treats all Muslims as our enemies would have a much higher cost in both American lives and treasure.

Just my two cents, and probably not worth even that much.


* http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...28&postcount=3

** “Dozens killed in Iraq sectarian violence,” Al-Jazeera, February 24, 2006. The article can be found online here:
english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=18844 (link left cold – add http://)

*** “Nearly 1,000 Iraqis demonstrate against Al Qaeda” Al-Bawaba, January 25, 2006. The article can be found online here:
albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/193907 (link left cold – add http://www)

[Pete]

Originally Posted by redleg99

...So what does all this prove? I think it says that there are divisions among Muslims, and that any given Muslim is not necessarily a Jihadi. Based on this, I think this creates an opportunity for us in our current war .....

Can you give me a similar quote from those sources where they denounce the 9-11 highjackers?

The original post REs a Muslim against Non-Muslim act - and you defend with a Muslim on Muslim act. Not the same thing.

On some things they are divided, on others they appear to be united. Non-Muslims is one area where they seem to be united.

[redleg99]

Can you give me a similar quote from those sources where they denounce the 9-11 highjackers?

The original post REs a Muslim against Non-Muslim act - and you defend with a Muslim on Muslim act. Not the same thing.

Very good point, and one that I have to admit I overlooked.
As I said in my previous post, this stuff is tough to find. The best source I know of so far remains Fawaz Gerges’ Journey of the Jihadist. As I recall, he interviews Muslims and even Jihadis who denounce the 9-11 attacks.

I was able to find these four news articles after an hour or so of searching. I apologize for the long quotes, but I’m not sure you can locate these through Google – I found them through the Access World News database.

The first one is from the San Diego Union-Tribune in early 2002:

Ever since suicide terrorists killed nearly 3,000 in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, mainstream Muslims have rushed to denounce extremist violence against innocents as un-Islamic.

For some in Islam, however, public relations doesn't go far enough. What's needed in their religion, they say, are central authorities to hold renegades accountable and show the world -- with actions, not words -- where Islam stands.

"Certainly the onus is on Muslims to get their own house in order so that, amongst other things, the events of 9-11 are never repeated," said Dr. A. Cader Asmal, an endocrinologist and spokesman for the Islamic Council of New England.

His proposal: set up a pan-Islamic judicial council to issue rulings for all Muslims and appoint enforcers to ensure "persons who spread hate in the name of Islam are prosecuted in courts of Islamic law."

Asmal is not alone in dreaming of stronger Islamic structures to rein in those who give the religion a bad name. But not everyone is convinced that more central authority is the answer.*

This one doesn’t have Muslims denouncing 9-11, but they do denounce the bombings in London in 2005. More importantly, they are Muslims living in the Middle East:

Palestinians from all walks of life have strongly condemned the London carnage, although most of them are critical of Britain's alliance with the US in the war in Iraq.

On Thursday Palestinians did not take to the streets of Gaza City and Ramallah to celebrate the terrorist attacks in London, as they did after 9/11 . Instead, most Palestinians were quick to denounce the attacks, calling for an end to terrorism.

"We disagree with Britain on many issues, but we believe that the terrorist attacks in London were a big mistake," said Ayman Asfour, 22, a university student from Nablus. "Such attacks cause a lot of damage to the Arabs and Muslims ." **

This one is not very explicit, but notice the group does denounce violence in general after 9-11. Maybe that’s significant, maybe it isn’t.

For Montasser El Zayat, the turning point came one autumn day in 1997. That morning, six men dressed in black appeared at a crowded tourist spot near Luxor in Upper Egypt. As two of them kept watch, smoking cigarettes and drinking Coke, their accomplices reached into black vinyl bags and pulled out automatic weapons.

For nearly an hour, they methodically slaughtered all the foreigners they could find. They shot some and mutilated others with knives. They chased those who fled and hunted those who hid. When they were finally done, 58 foreigners lay dead, along with four Egyptians. It was the work of Al Gama Islamiya, the world's largest militant Islamic group. El Zayat was the group's spokesman and one of its leaders.

"I was shocked," he says now. "I was pushing for a peaceful approach. And I told them we had to denounce this attack, and the use of violence."

He didn't win the argument, at least not then. Two years after the Luxor attack, Al Gama grudgingly agreed to a cease-fire, but its leaders never denounced the attack and remained divided over the use of violence. El Zayat, frustrated and exhausted, resigned from the group, although he remains a key voice in the movement.

Since Sept. 11, the balance has shifted decisively in his favor. The entire leadership of Al Gama recently signed a statement renouncing violence and calling attacks like the one at Luxor a mistake. Leading members and former members have published five books that spell out the Quran's argument against violence, one of them written by El Zayat. The group's jailed leader, Karam Zohdi, even suggested using revenues from the books to compensate past victims.***

Finally, here’s a story of Muslims in Australia denouncing 9-11:

Muslim leaders yesterday used the fourth anniversary of the September 11 attacks to declare terrorism as un-Islamic and un-Australian.

Defending their controversial decision to meet on the date, they said it offered them the chance to send a powerful message to fundamentalists trying to "hijack'' their religion.

The summit, also attended by politicians and representatives from the US and Turkish embassies, went ahead as firefighters on Sydney's lower North Shore remembered 343 US comrades who were among almost 3000 killed in the terror attacks.

Stepan Kerkyasharian, chair of the Community Relations Commission, said the timing of the summit ensured there was a strong focus on condemning terrorism.

He said it was up to "sane and peace-loving'' Muslims to deprive extremists of the "perverted victory they desire.''

"No sane and peace-loving religion can support terrorism ... [or justify the killing if humans in this day and age,'' he told the 200-strong crowd.****

Admittedly, this isn’t much. However, I’d like to suggest that in this instance, actions might speak louder than words. Consider the historical record of the Anbar awakening and the Sons of Iraq project, where a good number of Iraqi Sunnis showed a willingness to ally themselves with us to fight against their more extreme religious brethren.

Edit to add:

To avoid confusion, let me reiterate my position.
I am not advocating that we suddenly need to go around hugging every Muslim we can find. Instead, I am suggesting that there are differences among Muslims and that in the context of the current conflict, a policy of separating the reconcilable from the irreconcilable is possible. While there are other options open to us, I believe this policy offers us the best chances of success at the lowest cost, in both lives and dollars.

In fact I, believe that is the current policy of our government: We can see Ambassadors and G.O.s engaging their (often Muslim) counterparts at the strategic level , as well as platoon and squad leaders engaging village Muktars and tribal sheiks (who are also often Muslim) at the tactical level. Often these engagements center around combating a Jihadist threat (at least they did in my case). For those at the pointy end of the spear, I am not sure it is possible to carry out this policy, if we hold to a belief that all Muslims are Jihadists.



* Jeffery Macdonald, “Some Muslims push for panel to punish extremists.” San Diego Union-Tribune, Friday, January 18, 2002

** Khaled Abu Toameh, “This time, Palestinians refrain from celebration,” Jerusalem Post, (Israel) Sunday, July 10, 2005

*** Tom Moran, “A kinder, gentler Islam? - Egyptian Islamists denounce violence, and some see a Muslim reformation,” Star-Ledger(Newark, NJ), Sunday, July 7, 2002

**** Lisa Davies, “Muslims use 9/11 to denounce terror,” Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) Monday, September 12, 2005

[Pete]

Long search with little results.

This is the money quote

"We disagree with Britain on many issues, but we believe that the terrorist attacks in London were a big mistake," said Ayman Asfour, 22, a university student from Nablus. "Such attacks cause a lot of damage to the Arabs and Muslims ." **

When Major Muslim Newspapers start hammering the Anti-Terrorist Drum I'll start believing. I'm talking terrorist acts against the west.

[blue02hd]

Originally Posted by redleg99

First, I’ll join with others here in mourning the loss of our soldiers.

I agree with the first part of your statement. I think, though, that you can say the same things about criminals in general: it’s difficult to know who is going to be a criminal until they have committed a crime.

[/url])

Two points I wanted to make before crawling back into my hide site. I too mourn the loss of our soldiers, that goes without saying.

Second, I wanted to address your reference to this terrorist as a criminal. He is not a criminal, as combatants in war are classified as soldiers. I emphasize this point as soldiers and criminals are two very distinct and different class of threat. I wish this was understood more fully within the circles that direct policy as it relates to this topic, but as I am a soldier still, I will not pass further comment.

As soldiers, reguardless of the current situation we operate in, we always have to remain vigilant and prepared to react to the enemy in whatever shape or form it reveals itself. This tactic used by the "Imam" is not new, and although effective in this instance atleast, remains a tool in the insurgency's tool box.

It's cold reminders like this that only reinforce why SOP's and TTP's are to be followed.

I won't armchair quarterback anyone here, and as I am still stateside, I have no right to. But I do wish to add my .02 on the relation of criminal to combatant you inferred.

That being said, I enjoyed your posts as they are well thought and offer an honest debate. Might not agree, but hey, you got me thinking,,,,

[redleg99]

blue02hd,

I appreciate your comments, and I agree with your criticism of my statement on criminals and terrorists.

Perhaps I should have said this: It is impossible to know who is going to be a terrorist until they take active steps to commit their first terrorist act.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Puertoland

RIP to those Americans who lost their lives in this incident.

As for the scumbag. I'm glad he got what he deserved, its a shame it was already too late.

Amen, brother.... I couldn't have said it any better.......

GB TFS