You Be The Judge

Still following the evolution of the Iraqi governing coalition. Today, I read a handful of reports, all published within an hour, from three different sources, with very different characteristics.

First the NYT reports:
Iraqi Factions Try to Undercut a Plan to Isolate Extremists 10:15 AM

The NYT tells us that:

Several Iraqi political groups on Thursday maneuvered to undercut an American-backed initiative that would create a multisectarian bloc intended to isolate extremists like the Shiite cleric and militia leader Moktada al-Sadr.

But, then they go on to tell us there's one group and how the rest of parliment will never be able to meet their new demands (not bothering to mention them). Oh, and the negotiations have stopped.

The report then goes on to tell us:

• SecDef Gates visited Iraq to discuss sending more troops.


• 38 bodies were found.


• Three bombs were set off.


• Saddam's trial was adjourned until Jan. 8.


• Sadr's maneuvering, has some control over Maliki, has paralyzed the gov't, and might rejoin the talks.


• Then back to Gates.


• Then back to more troops.


• Then a dig at the incompetent Iraqi troops.

Wow. That was a, confusing, mouthful. So, the point is, the NYT asserted that Iraqi Groups were undermining the talks and then didn't back it up. There's one group according to their own report.

And all of this is followed up with gloom and doom, talk of more US Troops, and incompetent Iraqi support.

Second, the BBC:
Iraq Shia press for Sadr return 10:12 AM

This reports describes attempts to convince Sadr to re-enter the political process during ongoing talks in Najaf with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq.

No mention of ongoing talks by the NYT eh?

Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda' 10:18 AM

The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda...

"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained...

The sheikh said some of the al-Qaeda fighters and weapons came from neighbouring Arab countries, Syria and Saudi Arabia mainly, but some were from more distant Arab countries and from Afghanistan.

No mention of anything like this in that expansive NYT piece eh?

Third, and finally, the TimesOnline:
Shia leadership agrees deal over sectarian killers 11:12 AM

Two of the senior Shia political leaders in Iraq agreed in principle to crack down on death squads within their own ranks yesterday. The rival Shia factions struck the deal in an attempt to salvage the country from collapse, said Haidar al-Abadi, a Shia MP in the Dawa party, who is close to Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister...

Last night a delegation was on its way to the shrine city of Najaf intent on convincing the anti-Western cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the widespread killing of Sunnis, to join the crackdown. Officials close to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr said he had agreed to rejoin the Iraqi Government.

Although the two parties are agreed on the need for a crackdown, the accord could easily fall apart if Hojatoleslam al-Sadr cannot be persuaded to back it and if Sunni parties fail to take similar steps.

According to the TimesOnline, major Shia parties agree (sans al-Sadr), who agrees but will probably only play if the Sunnis do. No droning on about dooma and gloom. No hints at more troops, no digs at the poor, incapable Iraqi troops. The Times sticks to the story at hand.

Conclusion (or, Questions):
1) What's the political landscape in Iraq relative to the governing coalition?

While it's not crystal-clear, it seems fairly promising. Sure there's some posturing. The fundamental questions is, what will Sadr do?

2) Why the dramatic difference in reporting?

...

Related:
Groundwork
What Next?

Groundwork

Following up on What Next with regard to the groundwork being laid for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq: Has everyone (Iraqi politicians) signed onto "Bush's" plan for isolating extreme elements of the society?

Two articles today provide some insight:
New US defense chief weighs reinforcements on Iraq visit (AFP)
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq (NYT)

From AFP:

Hadi al-Ameri of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), described this idea as "madness".

"Any attempt to exclude Sadr's movement would be a strategic error," he warned. "How could you exclude the Sadr movement when the prime minister is working for national reconciliation?"

Instead, Shiite officials from the coalition parties said a delegation would meet Sadr and urge him to restate his support for the political process.

al-Sadr has paralyzed the government since Bush's meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan. Why would he rejoin the government now?

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq sounds distinctly Iranian to me...which is a bit worrisome.

From NYT:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say...

Mr. Maliki has expressed strong interest in the coalition but wants initially to welcome all political parties into its fold rather than to limit membership, Iraqi and Western officials say. That would provide additional political cover for any break with Mr. Sadr.

The prime minister’s [al-Maliki] proposal, Mr. Hamoudi said, "is to start with a very wide door and gradually close it."

So, while different groups publicly express strong support and some reservation for the coalition I see a lot of agreement here on specifics. Including, critically, the approach to dealing with al-Sadr. Invite him in, give him a chance...when he rejects it, which I assume he will (why shouldn't I?), the beefed up American force can finally confront his militia head on.

Is that what our troops are going to do?? If not, they shouldn't go.

Lost in Translation

hattip scrappleface

I'm not a religous person. Which is why I've had to read more than a handful of books to understand the motives of radical islamist terrorists. It's that partial understanding that makes this video so amusing.



Gateway Pundit is taking bets on which Democrats will be the first to agree with Zawahiri about the need for us to negotiate with his gang.

That's fairly incendiary. In defense, the jab is being made within the context of the ISG recommending that we negotiate with Iran and Syria (known to sponsor terrorists) and visits to Syria by legislators of a certain political party. The catch phrase being, "all through the Cold War we held talks with the Soviet Union". Well, to that I say, we all know, this isn't our daddy's Cold War. A message that seems to be increasingly lost in translation.

Nature

Some may wonder, why debate all the Shiite this and Sunni that? Why are we even there at this point? Why don't we just leave? There are many reasons, Maj. Ben Connable illustrates some of them for us in his NYT piece.

A War That Abhors a Vacuum

THE niceties are up for debate: phased or partial withdrawal from Iraq would entail pulling troops back to their bases across the country, or leapfrogging backward to the nearest international border, or redeploying to bases in nearby countries.

But whatever the final prescription, the debate must include a sober look at the street-level impact of withdrawal. What will become of Iraqi villages, towns and cities as we pull out? Although past is not necessarily prologue, recent experience in Anbar Province may be instructive...

Read the rest

What Next?

Well, the sineman would seem to be on vacation. He's placed a white board on his fence with some markers. Passers-by have written various foolish things on it. None of which are worthy of comment. And he hasn't posted on his blog in quite a while.

So, what next? Well, President Bush is talking of sending more troops to Iraq. The NYT tells us about it. Quotes some Generals advising caution and then describes the latest attack in Baghdad. I have to say, they do a rather poor job of framing the issue...

It's understood that the Iraqi capital is the focal point of the insurgency in Iraq. At this stage the Shiite militias have the Sunnis backed into a corner, and are holding the government hostage. That is, the al-Maliki government needs al-Sadr's votes to remain in power as Prime Minister and therefore, cannot act against him. Additionally, there's Al Qaeda. Some Sunni groups have thrown in with Al Qaeda as a means of survival, others for theological or political reasons. They're a minority, 25 of 31 Sunni tribes in Anbar province have signed a pact against Al Qaeda.

Still framing here...Bush isn't just "throwing" troops into this. He recently met with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, an Iraqi Shiite leader, and Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni vice president of Iraq. Now we're done framing.

Is President Bush building support for al-Maliki? Or, building support for his replacement? To coincide with the infusion of additional troops. Is it wise to stick with al-Maliki (as it seems to me that we will)? Why? Why not?

Of course, there's no word on what was actually discussed during the talks. Did both parties "sign on" to "the plan"? If we're talking of sending more troops one would have to think so.

With al-Sadr isolated, how will he react? Will he back down and opt for national reconciliation? Or, all out civil war? Is that why we're sending more troops? Are we assuming he'll opt for war?

If anybody would like to offer some ideas, feel free. Someone recently commented that I'm "opinionated". Well, ok, maybe. But I am respectful and do listen and believe it or not, I do consider other points of view. Sineman can vouch for me ;)

Sanity

Wow. Who knew International Law could actually be enforced?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16209844/

NEW YORK - Outgoing U.S. U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former diplomats from Israel and Canada called on the United Nations on Thursday to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with inciting genocide.

Flying Pig Watch

Every once in a while something is written which is so contrary, profound, and truthful that, well, "bring out the pig!".

Astonishingly, it's from TIME. Lisa Beyer has confronted one of the major premises of the Iraq Study Group. It's one that I have a lot of trouble with as well. I understand the issue being addressed upsets people, and creates tension in the region but, in this case, I think it's being used as a carrot. Although, to quote Mark Steyn, I think it's being used in a rather vulgar way, to "f--k the Jews".

No sensible person is against peacemaking in the Holy Land. Applause and hopefulness would seem the reasonable reaction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush Administration "act boldly" and "as soon as possible" to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. But as a front-row observer of similar efforts over the past 15 years, I could muster neither response. In lumping the Iraq mess in with the Palestinian problem--and suggesting the first could not be fixed unless the second was too--the Baker-Hamilton commission lent credibility to a corrosive myth: that the fundamental problem in the Arab world is the plight of the Palestinians.

Read it all.

Spinning Polls

Public optimism fades in Afghanistan

The poll was conducted by ABC and the BBC, and then "reported" by AP. I say "reported" because I don't believe the headline and subsequent "analysis" represents the situation comprehensively.

The number of people who think the country is on the right track has dropped 22 points — to 55 percent — in the last year...

OK, "on the right track" to what? What percentage of respondents were optimistic with regard to the question of getting on the right track?

Optimism had declined on a variety of fronts compared with a year earlier: a 17-point drop in the belief that security has improved since the Taliban was in charge of the country to 58 percent; a 13-point drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in the next year, to 54 percent; and a 15-point drop in the job approval rating of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to 68 percent.

That approval level would be welcomed by most politicians in the United States.

There are four elements in the two paragraphs cited above. First, a drop in the belief that security has improved. Fair enough, we're all aware of the increase in violence there. Were respondents confident in the government's and NATO's ability to clamp down on it? There's no information presented about population's prediction with regard to future events, only on past events and the present situation.

Second, a drop in the belief that life in Afghanistan will get better in a year. "Life"? For everyone? For the respondents family? For the respondent? Economic life? Social life? Quality of life? What factors are most important? But, at least this question deals with the future.

Third, the job approval of Hamid Karzai. Well, quite a number of factors affect that number as well all know.

Fourth, and finally, the gratuitous dig at western leaders by the anonymous authors.

Then we get to the zinger:

Most in Afghanistan still think the U.S.-led invasion five years ago had positive effects on their country. Almost nine in 10 call the invasion a good thing for their country. Three-fourths have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban.

Most in Afghanistan? Why don't they quantify that more precisely as they did with the previous questions? Because it doesn't fit with the headline??

With the rest though, they completely miss the larger point. For example, Three-fourths [are willing to admit to a stranger that they] have a favorable opinion of the United States and almost nine in 10 prefer the current government to the Taliban [without fear of reprisal].

No reason for optimism there.

EDIT: 12/19/2006 Gateway Pundit is writing about a newer poll in Afghanistan.

Isolating al-Sadr

Last night my wife and I were talking about Iraq and why al-Sadr was such an important person. His armed force aside, he's in control of 30 seats in parliment. The Prime Minister (to date) has relied on his support to stay in power and keep the government together.

So, I suggested that, given the ISG's dismissal of partitioning Iraq, perhaps the purpose of president Bush's meetings with Shia and Sunni leaders from Iraq was to build support for Maliki to a point at which he would no longer have a need for al-Sadr's votes. Originally I thought maybe they would be discussing partition or a conference as I describe here.

The NYT is reporting that the talks with Bush were part of an effort intended to build a coalition to isolate al-Sadr.

Assuming the effort meets with success. Once al-Sadr is politically isolated one would presume that he would "sue for terms" by joining the reconciliation effort and play to the part or, lash out.

With our planning to send more troops to Baghdad...what do you think commanders on the ground anticipate?

Reuters is on the ball

You know how important it is to frame people in the proper perspective right?

Insurgent vs. Terrorist?
Academic vs. Racist?

Iran opens conference questioning the Holocaust

Among the participants was U.S. academic David Duke, a former Louisiana Republican Representative. He praised Iran for hosting the event.

Four hours later, the same "reporter" "published" an updated "article", with a new title, Iran meeting questions Holocaust and gas chambers. The paragraph I cite above is, strangely, missing.

Ya'think there might be some shortcomings in the "process" over there at Reuters?

Apparently, there's also something behind the charaterization of the Jewish Rabbis in attendance. Although I admit to having no first-hand knowledge on the subject. Reuters: David Duke a "US Academic" (LGF)

These so-called "Jewish rabbis" that Reuters casually drops into the article are in actuality members of Neturei Karta—an insane sect with a tiny membership that makes a practice of supporting evil around the world. Sort of the Jewish equivalent of Fred Phelps and his sick bunch. But to Reuters they’re just like any other "Jewish rabbis."

Interestingly, this paragraph is also missing from the second "article" "authored" by the esteemed "journalist".

Resisting Israeli Occupation?

This is what you get when you legitimize armed religous zealots with moral equivelance and pandering.

Children of Islamic Hamas opponent killed (TimesOnline)

But the Times puts a funny slant on it.

In a disturbing sign of wider regional tensions leaking into the Palestinian arena Fatah sought to portray the Iranian-funded Hamas as stooges of Shia Tehran, killing their fellow Sunni Palestinians.

They ignore the 1400 year old divide within Islam. Dismiss the possibility that Iran uses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as political cover for a policy seeking hegemony over the greater Middle East. Instead adopt the recently-made-trendy stance of attributing the violence, in part, to Iraq.

Wait, I thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the cause of all violence in the Middle East...now it's the other way around?? (hat tip: ISG) hmm...

Turns out, the BBC may have more of the real story.

Mr Balousheh [the children's father] is considered a leading enemy of Hamas. He was the main interrogator of Hamas members during the 1990s crackdown on the Islamist movement.

And there's the ongoing evolution of "democracy":

Mr Abbas has been considering a request by his allies to hold early elections to resolve an impasse in efforts to form a unity government.
Hamas denounced the proposal to hold another election as a "coup against democracy".

In any event, I doubt this was a botched assassination attempt. More likely, revenge.

Now, how has the international community reacted? The UN? Kofi Annan? Well, he was busy (Annan chides U.S. in farewell speech).

EDIT: Gates of Vienna has a similar view:

The initial news reports claimed that Mr. Balousheh was the supposed target of the killing. However, Carl in Jerusalem puts it in even starker terms: “I believe that they were trying to get the kids as a warning to the father and to other Fatah members.”

In other words, they knew the father wasn’t in the car; instead, the targeting of the children was a message to him. And the fact that the message was delivered in a font called Overkill, in a street full of other children, didn’t matter at all. What was important was to deliver the message.

In addition to that, a tidbit, if you could call it that, on politicians from a certain party meeting with HAMAS members. sigh.

Cartoons and Conferences

In a partial response to the Danish Muhammad cartoons Iran hosted a gallery of cartoons from around the world back in August. (BBC)

Organiser Masoud Shojai said: "You see they allow the Prophet to be insulted. But when we talk about the Holocaust, they consider it so holy that they punish people for questioning it."

No mention of the lack of violent protests and out-right murder in response to the anti-semitic cartoons.

So, that wasn't good enough. Didn't provoke enough of a reaction among the infidels. Thus, Iran is hosting a two-day conference which is likely to question whether the Holocaust actually happened. (BBC)

"The first question to be posed is: did the Holocaust actually happen or not? And the second one is: if it did happen, what was the scale of it?"

"The allegation that six million Jews were killed or burnt in this event, is it true or not?"

You know, so what if it didn't. How does that affect anything? Oh, nevermind, I get it, "6 million of you didn't die 60 years ago so, we're going to kill 7 million of you now."

Here's to negotiating with genocidal maniacs.

Mark Steyn on the ISG

The Iraq Study Group report has certainly caused a lot of controversy of late. I actually think it's a faily decent way of airing policy debate in public. Sadly, it's by so shamelessly over-hyped by the media and mischaracterized that it's essentially a wash.

You've heard the press say it's a damning critique of the president's policy. But, have you heard this?

We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the
President: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend
itself."

ISG, Pg 40

I'm a fan of Mark Steyn's writing. I recently read this latest book America Alone. I don't always agree with everything he says. But often I find something that seems a bit too far out there...something that seems like pure hyperbole...only to find out later that he was, in fact, using someone elses words or, entirely correct or, indeed sometimes, wrong.

Nevertheless, you have to admire his writing:

Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah.

Read it all.

more dead horses

I lied earlier, I really do love beating dead horses, muwahaha...

Cherry-Picking Campaign Promises (NYT)

...Democrats eagerly made a campaign vow to promptly enact all of the [9/11] panel’s recommendations...Now that they can taste power again, however, the victors seem to be having second thoughts...Surely, the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation’s security, far more than their credibility, if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight.

Emphasis Mine. And rightly so.

Buried in the Rubble

During the summer (of 2006) we all witnessed the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. There were many aspects of events which were covered by news media and, among the most prominent was the plight of Lebanese civilians. Qana being the epitome.

In my opinion, one side of the argument sought to appeal to emotion. Citing pictures of dead children as proof of Israeli imcompetence or even malice. Indeed the pictures represented tragic events.

Months later, after extensive research, we can see, clearly, the acts which resulted in Qana and countless other tragic events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html

I stand by my position on this. All conflict is to be avoided. All conflict is terrible. Nevertheless, there is a meaningful difference between people who, during conflict, act to prevent and minimize civilian casualties, and those who intentionally expose civilians to harm. Even the authors of the Geneva Conventions recognized this...in spirit and letter.

Of course, there are other opinions. Those who adhere to that opinion often cite Qana as a specific case of a systemic failure of that logic. To them, I say, there is an alter-narrative which you should consider: The Corruption of the Media

How Little We All Know Cont'd

Given that it's Sunday, the day of seemingly endless talking heads and expert analysis in all forms of media...and in keeping with the theme of a few previous posts:

Say no to AP’s shoddy work

Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes.

And further still:

The AP has another Iraqi stringer problem. Photographer Bilal Hussein is in U.S. custody, and the AP has been clamoring indignantly for his release. AP reports have buried the U.S. explanation that Hussein is being held without charge because - quite aside from producing photos that showed him to be overly intimate with terrorists in Fallujah - he was in an al-Qaeda bomb factory, with an al-Qaeda bombmaker, with traces of explosives on his person when he was arrested.

Stunningly, some in academia are alerted to certain trends as well. Communication professor examines media bias in president's speeches:

Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters "how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror."

...

Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana State University and both his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from Florida State. He joined Virginia Tech's Department of Communication last year after having taught political communication for tens years at Dartmouth College.

How can the population understand the tactics, strategy, and even the existance of an ideological opponent in this environment?

Previous Posts:
More Evidence of how Little We All Know
Do any of us really know the truth (Pt II)?
Do any of us really know the truth?

Rebirth: A Constructive Idea

On August 15, 2006 in a post titled A Constructive Idea I cited the Dayton Accords as an example of ethnic conflict, resulting from the downfall of a dictatorial regime, being solved with reasonable success.

Today, the NYT released a memo from Donald Rumsfeld, dated November 6, 2006, outlining potential changes to current policy in Iraq. (article, text of memo)

The memo contains a number of options which, under any circumstances, we must adopt. For example,

Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq...

Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

Last, and considered 'below the line' or, less attractive, he says "Try a Dayton-like process".

I would note that President Bush met with the Iraqi Prime Minister and Jordanian King this week. Next week, Pres. Bush is meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite leader. In that piece, it's reported that:

Next month, President Bush is scheduled to meet with Tariq al-Hashemi, the Sunni Arab vice president and leader of the most powerful Sunni Arab party, a senior administration official said.

The last piece, the Kurds, are not directly involved in the sectarian violence in Iraq. Their part of the country has been and continues to be relatively peaceful. One would presume they would attend any conference with a simple request. However, we should not presume. We should treat them as an equal party in any talks.

Are we building up to a conference of Iraqi leaders? Dayton like? Or, is the President trying to do it 'on the fly'...shuttling messages back and forth between parties? Time will tell. Surely it would be a good step to get Sunni and Shiite leaders in the same room. With a common goal.

Irony of Tolerance

Isn't it ironic that after hundreds of years of struggling against various forms of prejudice under the banners of human rights, civil rights, tolerance, desegregation, women's suffrage, etc, etc multi-culturalism brings us full circle: The end of one law for all? (BBC)

Of course, in new age speak it's called, legal pluralism, not segregation. And true, it has differences. It's not a case of a group of people having "box" drawn around them by others based on the color of their skin. It's a case of a group of people drawing a box around everyone else due to their lack of proper religious values.

Supporters of the extra-judicial systems insist their courts will not delve into criminal mattes. But, precedent is clear. Islam and Sharia must govern all forms of life: domestic, financial, commercial, international, criminal, etc...to comprimise would be to stray from the path. Apostate.

What will be the effect on a society that allows multiple judicial systems to "coexsist"?

Moderate Majority

The Moderate Majority, silenced by the radical minority.

In late October Jamal Miftah wrote:

Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam. They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam....
Even mosques and Islamic institutions in the U.S. and around the world have become tools in [Al-Qaeda's] hands and are used for collecting funds for their criminal acts. Half of the funds collected go into the pockets of their local agents and the rest are sent to these thugs.

They are the reason for branding the peaceful religion of Islam as terrorism. The result, therefore, is in the form of Danish cartoons and remarks/reference by the Pope.

I appeal to the Muslim youth in particular and Muslims of the world in general to rise up and start jihad against the killers of humanity and help the civilized world to bring these culprits to justice and prove that Islam is not a religion of hatred and aggression.

I appeal to the Muslim clerics around the world that, rather than issuing empty fatwas condemning suicide bombing, they should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world. This does not include the chilling number of deaths because of such activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is well over 250,000.

I appeal to al-Zawahri and his band of thugs to hand themselves over to justice and stop spreading evil and killing innocent humans around the world in the name of Islam. Their time is limited and Muslims of the world will soon rise against them to apprehend them and bring them to justice

He was then banned from his mosque.

Some 80% of mosques in the US are Wahhabi. http://www.pbs.org...wahhabism.html

A strict, conservative form of Islam that came to power in Saudi Arabia after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (The Caliphate) at the end of WWI. It has grown in influence since then through the use of petro-dollars to fund schools and mosques around the world. It traces its origins to the times of the crusades...a theological rationalization for the military defeats suffered at the hands of the infidel crusaders the wahhabis reasoned that they weren't good enough Muslims...that's why Allah had denied them victory over the invading infidels.

As of today, he has been allowed to return to the mosque. If I were him, I'm not sure I'd go.