This video has surfaced that purportedly shows the “imam from the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem” vowing to revenge the death of Osama bin Laden and kill “the western dogs” responsible for his death. However, while this tape is getting a lot of hits, there is still no identification of the alleged imam from one of Islam’s most sacred mosques.
The diatribe is translated as “The western dogs are rejoicing after killing one of our Islamic lions. From Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the future caliphate will originate with the help of God, we say to them – the dogs will not rejoice too much for killing the lions. The dogs will remain dogs and the lion, even if he is dead, will remain a lion.” He then reportedly goes on to say to President Obama that “[y]ou personally instructed to kill Muslims. You should know that soon you’ll hang together with Bush Junior. . . . We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We’ll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god’s help,” he vowed.
The imam, however, is not named. I do not doubt that these sentiments are shared by many in the region, but I would be curious is anyone has conclusively identified this man as an imam of this mosque. All of the articles repeat his title as imam without any identification of the man.
Source: Daily Mail
“Israel has every right to exist but, its record on its treatment of the Palistinian’s isn’t something to brag about …
Good grief.”
Israel’s record is completely irrelevant to the article. What would be relevant, since you agreed that many in the area share the supposed Imam’s views, is that Israel in fact deals with many people like this. Yet, they do not, as per your allegation, treat all Muslims as terrorists, as evidenced by the inclusion of Muslims in the Knesset.
That you feel justified in projecting this guys statement into an indictment of Israel only illustrates your prejudice. That you demand evidence for his alleged identity but have none for your allegations illustrates your hypocrisy.
I think the Imam is all wet.
I would suggest that this alleged Imam should keep his mouth shut. He is on the same level as the Florida pastor who burned the Koran. They are both idiots and bigots.
Gingerbaker,
“So, you agree with the stipulation that many agree with the man, yet you use the opportunity to criticize Israel for something it has not done?
Tell me – do you think you might be just a teensy bit biased on the subject? Good grief.”
Slow down, sport. You obviously missed my point. My point is, as the professor points out, is that it is not know if this guy is an Imam or not as he is not identified on the video. Further, knowing full well how the Right has demonized Islam as a whole, the Right will use this as “evidence” that all Muslims are being taught this garbage from their Imam’s, all Muslims are evil and out to destroy the world as we know it. And, I’m pretty confident Israel will see it the same way.
Israel has every right to exist but, its record on its treatment of the Palistinian’s isn’t something to brag about …
Good grief.
SL:
So, you agree with the stipulation that many agree with the man, yet you use the opportunity to criticize Israel for something it has not done?
Tell me – do you think you might be just a teensy bit biased on the subject? Good grief.
I liked everything you wrote except this. I don’t see how the ticking time bomb scenario is used to promote a general policy of torture – it is an exception to a general ban on the use of torture.
You may not like it, because it does present a specific instance where *not* using extreme measures would appear to be unethical, but there are exceptions to many of our most cherished ideals and rights. Free speech, perhaps our most important right, is not absolute and has many specific exceptions, for example.
What the Bush, and now the Obama, administration did was to approve and execute a general policy of torture, (not to mention extra-legal kidnapping, suspension of habeus corpus, and murder) which, I believe, can not be justified for the reasons you discussed.
“The imam, however, is not named. I do not doubt that these sentiments are shared by many in the region, but I would be curious is anyone has conclusively identified this man as an imam of this mosque. All of the articles repeat his title as imam without any identification of the man.”
I agree but I suspect that the Rabid Right and Israel will be all over this like white on rice … shoot first, ask questions much, much later …
———————————————
Frank,
Well said, sir.
The point is that this is just the beginning…. -Isabel Darcy
It is.
And it will certainly help those who are profiting in the US and elsewhere — those whose motto might be “Keep fear alive.” I, for one, am very weary of this climate of fear.
Govt: Bin Laden’s death could inspire new attackBy Associated Press
Monday, May 2, 2011
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1334949&srvc=next_article
Thanks for posting it, Frank.
OT, but…
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/blackwaters-new-ethics-chief-john-ashcroft/
Back on topic: I obviously have no idea whether this guy is an Imam or not. [The qualifications required under Islam for becoming an Imam, are to me rather murky. I may be wrong, but I thought “Imam” is really just a term of respect and that any Muslim preacher with followers can call himself an Imam.]
Whatever: He may be reluctant to reveal his name, though obviously his face is there for all to see. The point is that this is just the beginning….
I agree with Frank, as well. Well said…
I screwed up in the above – should have credited that to Mixmaster over at balloon juice, sorry hit send to quickly.
I’m not interested in arguing whether there might be a case somewhere in history where torture led to important intelligence. The argument I want to have is whether a policy of torture is one we ought to adopt, and that’s a far broader question than whether it might work on rare occasion.
Let’s start with principle, then. Why don’t we torture? Because torture is diminishes our humanity—because in any and all instances we have a basic duty to ourselves, our allies and our enemies to treat all human beings in our custody with dignity. Not torturing, specifically the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, is as key a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech. It’s codified in laws governing conduct of our citizens, and in military regulations governing our treatment of non-citizens. Not torturing is both a founding principle and the law of the land, and Guantanamo and Bagram and all other places where we tortured people exist because some actors in the Bush administration knew damn well that they needed to hide their horrible deeds from the law.
After this first principle, and the laws that come from it, the next practical argument against torture is that it diminishes our standing in the world, which I don’t think requires a lot of argument, considering that we’re constantly inveighing against regimes that torture and have signed treaties prohibiting it.
These first two arguments are absolute, and there’s no “ticking time bomb” scenario that can be used to argue against them. Our deeply held principles are true no matter what Jack Bauer did in some episode of his show, and our national standing is hurt by us torturing regardless of whether we gleaned some nugget from waterboarding KSM.
The reason that we’re always hearing arguments about efficacy instead of principle or national standing is because that weak argument is the only place that torture proponents can put a stake in the ground. Once in a while, though rarely, and almost cetainly not in the case of Osama bin Laden’s killing, torture may work. So, they argue, we should make it our policy. The simple answer to that is that even if it works in some rare scenario, it’s not worth sacrificing a 250-year-old principle and our national standing for the tiny, fleeting benefit that may come from it. We’re America, and we’re better than that.
I agree with what frank said….
It was just a matter of time….
Please disregard my first comment. I put it on this thread by mistake. I re-posted on the Bin Laden Dead thread.
so we were wrong to prosecute people as war criminals for torturing captives?
CIA chief: Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/