Wow..Reyes didn't even know Al Qaeda is Sunni?

[fujiyama]

and he'll be heading the intelligence committee. I mean, yeah it's an improvement over a republican heading it (and I seriously doubt his predecessor knew - I know Bush didn't know there even were different groups in Iraq before the war, but that really shouldn't come as a surprise), but I can't believe how ignorant so many of our politicians are in general...

[babylonsister]

1. Neither did the two guys before him. I didn't know either FWIW. They

are just evil terrorists if I recall correctly.

[JanusAscending]

6. Amen sister!!!

I didn't know either!! They all look the same to me!!!:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: big time!:evilgrin: Love ya, DC

[Roland99]

2. I thought Al Qaeda (all few hundred of them) were Wahhabi?

[Psephos]

4. Wahhabi is fundamentalist Sunni n/t

[Roland99]

5. I knew they were close but I always thought Wahhabi was further right than Sunni.

I guess you summed it up with the "fundamental" qualifier. :)

[blitzen]

17. almost all muslims are sunni...

nearly 90%

about 10% are shi'a

a very small percentage are ismaelis...that's pretty much it, except for a few kharijites


wahhabism, salafism, etc, are fundamentalist/puritan tendencies within sunnism--they basically reject the mainstream classical islamic tradition (often a very beautiful tradition) in favor of "literal readings" (i.e. twisting the text of scripture to fit their agendas)

Wahhabism is a perversion of Islam (forbidding music, etc--even denouncing the pilgrimage to the Kabaa in Mecca) that arose in Saudi in the 18th cent. as part of a resistance against the Ottoman empire. It rallied the colonized people of what is now Saudi against the colonizing Turks, in part by telling them that they were "holier" than the occupiers. It was eventually adopted by the House of Saud as part of a deal: the royal family would rule politically, and the Wahhabs would have absolute authority in religion. Wouldn't have been such a big deal if it weren't for the fact that oil money would eventually make Saudi filthy rich, and Wahhabism, in one form or another, was able to strongly influence Islamic educaation in many parts of the world.

It would surprise me if Al Qaeda were initially Wahhabi--although I don't know for sure--since above all they are opponents of the Wahhabi Saudi regime. The Taliban, on the other hand, seem much more likely candidates (who was funding their madrasas? probably the Saudis). And so bin Laden probably allied with certain Wahhabis when convenient.

[Roland99]

32. Thank you for the clarification!

[nodular]

34. Thanks for some excellent info.

To add a few bits. Saudi Arabia was founded as a nation (as oppossed to an undifferentiated group of tribes) by an Arab shiek (tribal leader) named Saud. He formed a friendship with a very radical cleric named Wahib. The blend of traditional Arab tribalism with this radical religion gave Saud an edge over the other shieks, and Saudi Arabia was the ultimate result. This should give people an idea how central Wahibism is to Saudi Arabia.

Yet, the Wahibists have become the center of resistance to the current Saudi government, which is seen as having drifted from the "true path" and become too secular. Bin Laden is indeed a Wahibist (as are al Qaeda). The situation is quite confusing, with the Saudi government spending, I believe, tens of millions of dollars to spread Wahibbism around the world, but breaking up and assasinating terrorist cells at home that were spawned by the Wahibbists. It is a self-contradiction the Saudis cannot escape.

[Igel]

37. Al-Qa'ida was and is Wahhabi.

There's some wiggle room there, but not a great deal.

The complaint is that the rulers, while professing to be pure, are corrupt: they steal money from the Ummah, they behave in non-Muslims when they're out of the country. In short, they should be disposed of.

Wahhabis aren't the most extreme Salafist sect. There are more virulent strains of Salafism.

The "literal reading of the Qur'aan" business isn't quite spot-on. It's close, and they do tend to approach the Ahadith and Qur'aan literally; but it's a bit different in focus from American Xian fundamentalism. Salafists of all stripes presume that the earlier Muslims were more pure Muslims, more observant, closer to Muhammed and preserving the authentic traditions, and should therefore be emulated. The legal code the pure Muslims of yore elaborated should be followed; since Islam was spread and achieved it's empire and greatness by jihaad, jihaad is still a viable option for today's Muslims. By following the practices of the early Muslims, the same result will accrue to today's Muslims: trouncing the infidel, conquering large areas, and acquiring knowledge and booty (not that the average grunt in the field got much of either, but those romanticizing history never cast themselves as slaves or serfs).

[blitzen]

42. good points....

I guess by "literal" I mean the fact that they reject the whole classical exegetical tradition (tafsir) in favor of what they take to be the original (earliest, as you remark) meaning.

The large majority of these Salafist leaders are not very well-versed in Islamic theology and exegesis, hence one can can them "literalists" in the sense that they think you can just read scripture and know what it means, without having to "interpret." They are not trained clerics or jurists--they usually started out as professionals (doctors, journalists, engineers), not as religious scholars. The coming to prominence as (pseudo-)religious authortities is one of the legacies of colonialism, since the West pretty much discouraged traditional Islamic education, and that left a void that these guys filled.

[niyad]

3. do you know whether the repuke heading the committee these last years knew? we

know for a fact that BUSH doesn't know.

I do have to wonder what is really going on, since reyes had announced that the committee was going to do some serious investigating of the handling of iraq, amoung other things.

[EFerrari]

7. We don't even know if al Qaida is al Qaida. lol

Let's not give a leg up to the people setting traps for our guys. :)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. As someone who has worked very hard on a campaign

I can tell you that elected or soon-to-be elected officials have to know so much about a wide variety of issues. It would blow your mind. Yeah, maybe Reyes should know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, but don't forget he also has to know about a plethora of issues effecting this country and his state. He had to go through an election, with the numerous debates and public appearances that entails. He had to look good, say the right thing, and be ready for a quote or soundbite at any time. I don't envy them a bit. Try to cut him some slack.

[fujiyama]

10. Sorry

I'm not going to cut ANY politicians slack on something so simple.

[niyad]

12. and did I hear you commenting when it was demonstrated that bush, for one example, didn't know the

difference? or a whole host of repubs (try looking back over the archives of the conservative idiots list, as a start)

[Kelly Rupert]

16. I don't think you'll find a DUer

who doesn't take the utter incompetence of the Republicans as a given. That's why we're Democrats.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Yes. That's why we don't let just anybody serve.

They are expected to be exceptional people who are well-versed in certain areas, and conversant in all areas of policy. To have not even a passing knowledge in what should be his area of expertise is profoundly disturbing.

[baldguy]

9. Competence isn't a requirement.

What a person needs to get a high level position in the fantasyland of Republican World is loyalty to the party. Over experience. Over ability. Over patriotism.

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Hate to break it to you,

but he's a Democrat. And the incoming House Intelligence Committee chairman, hand-picked by Ms. Pelosi.

[BeFree]

11. Ignorance?

The only thing they need to know is that we need to get the hell out of Iraq ASAP.

We have been dishonest, have caused a lot of trouble and are distrusted across the whole region. The longer we leave our soldiers there the worse it will be for us and them.

Frankly, knowing which religions are which is fruitless. The players are apt to change on a whim, and the best we can do is extract ourselves from their civil war and support honest peace brokers who can stop the bloodshed ASAP.

Now, who are the honest peace brokers?

[Kelly Rupert]

13. He is incompetent and needs to be removed.

I don't care that the Republican predecessor was stupid, too. In case you don't remember, the last six years sucked largely because people in Washington didn't care to learn the first thing about the cultures we were attempting to transform. I refuse to support an incompetent Democrat simply because there are Republicans who are equally ignorant.

For the record, he also wasn't able to so much as identify Hezbollah.

[MindMatter]

18. Get over it, people

This is like not knowing Terry McVeih was a Presbyterian -- or whatever he might have considered himself. He was a murderer. His religion isn't germane at all. Twisted minds can, and often do, use any religion to justify their hate.

[Kelly Rupert]

19. It means everything.

The Middle East is headed towards a region-wide confrontation in Iraq, with the Sunnis funded by the Saudis and the Shi'a by Iran. The fact that Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are likely to be on opposite sides of any such conflict is quite important.

[fujiyama]

21. Thank you for understanding the importance

of such seeming nuances. I remember when Kerry was bashed for speaking in nuances, but nothing in the world is black and white, and not understanding the complexity has helped lead our country to the point it's at.

[NV1962]

22. Speaking of nuances...

I'm a bit mystified (to put it diplomatically) by the apparent ignorance of a rather oblique question, at least for someone who is going to delve quite deep into that issue.

I'm drawing the line at knowing about the quite pertinent Algerian and especially Egyptian precedents of Salafist / fundamentalist terrorism in the 80s and 90s... For a candidate for the chair of the intel committee to not know the most basic common denominator of al Q'aida (nevermind the exact definition of that rather loose and nebulous network) is just beyond the surreal.

If this reported ignorance is real, and that guy gets confirmed, it's as if Democrats are attempting to mimic Bush's catastrophically myopic and pig-ignorant policy.

He should be gone, and replaced by a far more knowledgeable (or should I say: more interested?) colleague, pronto.

It's not that hard to pick up a few selected books on the subject to at least understand the basics, dagnabbit!

[fujiyama]

23. It is somewhat stunning

I mean, it's not as if he's heading the agriculture committee. This is the freakin' Intel Committee!

This doesn't even require hours of reading books. It's a matter of passing general knowledge. It's mentioned on CNN. Often AP and Reuters articles will mention it as an aside. Hell, I never read the 9/11 Commission Report, but I'm almost sure this simple fact was mentioned in it.

This kind of ignorance should not be excused. It has led to some disastrous consequences over the last few years. I EXPECT republicans to be ignorant, and not only that, but arrogant about it. I expect better from Dems.

[NV1962]

24. It's on page 50, right under the section heading "Bin Ladin's Worldview"

The very first sentence of that section reads as follows:

Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis.

It's likely that he didn't even read the 9/11 Commission's report...

I think it's troubling either way - because if he has, he apparently has difficulty remembering the more salient and basic facts.

One would like to think that a chair of an intel committee understand and fairly well knows The Enemy he/she is supposed to keep in sight...

Shudder.

[question everything]

26. Jane Harman would have known

for Pelosi to kick her out is petty and childish.

Many here, on DU, declared that Harman does not belong on the intel committee because of her close ties to the military - an important factor in her district.

But not knowing, and not caring about such knowledge, of something that forms the basis for the killing in Iraq is inexcusable.

So far Pelosi has shown very poorly on running the house, putting petty reasons behind competency and experience.

[wyldwolf]

39. damn right

[fujiyama]

49. I don't really like Harman

but she strikes me as pretty intelligent and perceptive...I can't imagine her making a mistake like this.

[fujiyama]

20. Bullshit

Our government claims we are in a "war on terror" perpetrated by RELIGIOUS FANATICS. Timothy McVeigh's religion was inconsequential, immaterial, and irrelevant since he was not acting as a religious extremist group.

Al Qaeda is religiously motivated and in this case, it's a matter of how we conduct foreign policy to know the difference between the different sects of Islam and the different extremist groups within the region. Shiites are mostly in Iran and if Reyes is dealing with issues regarding the possible threat Iranian nukes pose, he damn well better know that Iran is predominantly Shiite and Saudi Arabia's extremist Sunnis/Wahhabis are primarily responsible for Al Qaeda.

This is like those claiming that Iran is a threat to us because they sponsor Hezbollah, a SHIITE group in Lebanon, fighting Israel. Not all extremist groups are the same and I want our leaders to know that.

I'm frankly disappointed that so many on DU will defend this ignorance if it's from own of "our own".

And for the record, I believe McVeigh considered himself Agnostic but was raised Catholic. I know he asked for "last rites" to be given though.

[Kelly Rupert]

25. The desire to defend "our own"

by pointing to the failings of others is the exact same mindset that has pervaded the Republican party. Let's not make it our signature trait too.

[Psephos]

27. Defending our own when they're incompetent is really attacking ourselves

Voters showed in November how much they value incompetence. They'll show it again in 2008.

Interesting article here in the London Times:

Inept Democrats Face Failure with Poor Start in Congress

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30809-2502273,00.html

<snip>
"At some point, Democrats will have to say what they think should be done in Iraq, if they are to look capable of winning elections, rather than accepting victory handed to them by a losing president. It wouldn’t hurt, when they do that, if they were fluent in the difference between Sunni and Shia."

I fundamentally disagree with the Times' editorial slant. However, political success is a matter of favorable perception, and right now, I'd say the last five weeks have shown the new Democratic leadership has feet of clay when it comes to perception management. We've wandered in the wilderness how many years? And the best we could come up with to differentiate ourselves from repugs are Pelosi, Murtha, Jefferson, and Reyes?

BTW, Kelly and fujiyama deserve kudos for tellin' it like it is in this thread.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. I'm afraid I'm equally disappointed in Ms. Pelosi.

She's given us nothing but embarrassment so far, and we haven't even assumed power. She has consistantly chosen loyalty over competence--which is exactly the same dynamic that led directly to the Republican congressional abuses of power.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mentalsolstice]

52. Wow! Just Wow!

So you would invade a country, try to redraw it's borders, put one group of people in charge, and not care about how the rest of the population feels about it?

McVeigh was one individual, but wouldn't you care about why millions of people believe what they do. Because we're talking about millions of Sunnis and Shi'ites, and smaller extremist factions within them. And not all of them started out twisted, but now they're using extremist methods to deal with the mess we have brought down upon them. In fact, much of the unhappiness started out during WWI (and even before that) when we carved up the Ottoman Empire, and drew borders with no consideration for the different Muslim factions. If I were going to invade a country or region, I would probably want to know all of this.

And in Bushy's case, didn't he major in history at Yale? I'm either not impressed in him, or I can't say very favorable things about Yale!? Hmmm...me thinks in this case...

[Leilani]

28. Not only was he uninformed about Sunni/ Shia

but he didn't know what Hezbolla is.

And he's been on the Intel Committee for 6 years.

I think it's a terrible situation, & a big mistake on Pelosi's part to choose this man.

I'm really angry about this, & I can't understand why so many here don't seem to care.

[JI7]

30. i can't think of what to say

i don't think people like this should be in congress but it is a democracy and i can't control everyones vote. but at the very least he shouldn't be on that type of committee. can't Pelosi pick someone else ? how about Murtha ?

[Leilani]

33. True, the people have the right to choose their reps

no matter how bad they are. Look at Jefferson winning in La.

But if the Dems want to be a permanent majority, they have to be, at the very least, competent.

I'm sure there are plenty of people, not on the Intel Committee who would do a good job.

And I'm not a big Harmen fan, but she knows the issues.

[fujiyama]

48. Six years? Damn...

Makes me wondering what the hell he's been doing there all those years...

[arewenotdemo]

29. Reyes is the dildo that wants to escalate the war by taking out al-Sadr

which is the most idiotic and dangerous thing the U.S. could possibly do.

Pelosi REALLY fucked up on that call.

Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

[JI7]

31. based on the other posts he just doesn't know what he is talking about

he is just making shit up because he doesn't have any idea about who or what anything is.

[sampsonblk]

35. This is a big help for Bush

to have a unprepared Dem on heading this committee and claiming we should increase troop levels. This is a very unfortunate turn of events - and not in our favor.

[fuzzyball]

45. I actually agree with Reyes that Muktada al-Sadr should be deposed

since that will eliminate a major trouble maker in Iraq.
But that makes me an idiot and dangerous in your eyes?
Oh well....you are entitled to your opinion. That is what
is so great about this United States. I still won't chop
your head off with a blunt knife without anesthesia.

[fujiyama]

47. Believing Al Sadr should be "disposed"

is not a decision that can be made lightly or out of ignorance. Reyes wants to send more troops to "dismantle the militias". Does he know which "militias"? It's basically back and forth ethnic cleansing at this point, and this idea that we can tell the Shiites to stop using newly gained political power, or the Sunnis to stop feeling persecuted and bitter over their loss, is sheer arrogance.

We may view him as a "trouble maker" or a terrorist, or whatever, but the simple fact is he commands respect and authority in his community. We kill him, we get a lot more killings against both American troops and Sunnis in the country.

Plus, his rise to prominence, is largely the fault of the US in the first place. We were never liked by the Sunnis. Now we're hated by the Shiites.

[fuzzyball]

50. I said "deposed" not "disposed/killed" and on second point

I basically agree with you that we can not resolve
the centuries old fight between the sunni and shia.

If I was the CinC, I would position all our troops at
the borders of Iraq, making sure no weapons or fighters
from outside are coming in. All those sophisticated IED's
are not made in factories in Iraq. They are smuggled in
from outside.

Then Let the various sects in Iraq fight it out. They will
anyway so it is foolish to get in the middle. Eventually all
the IED's, explosives and ammo will be exhausted and then a
truce can be reached.

In any case not all sunni or shia will get killed, so Iraq
can still survive and if turns out to be a real democracy, so
much so better.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. Deposed from what exactly?

He doesn't hold any sort of elective or official position. He's the popular leader of a popular movement. The only way to "depose" him would be to kill him, but that would not solve the underlying problems. It wouldn't make the popular movement that heads go away, it would merely inflame passions to a fever pitch, and some other leader would rise up to take his place.

Maybe we should just "depose" the entire movement by killing all of Sadr's supporters and sympathizers. That'll solve the problem. :sarcasm:

It was just that kind of idiotic thinking that got us into this mess in Iraq and paved the way for Sadr's rise to power in the first place. Saddam was a problem, and we figured that if we could just "depose" him, the problem would be solved and everything would come up roses. Hasn't worked out too well has it, or do you think it has?

[Bobbie Jo]

38. Ouch!

Hell..... my 17 year old knew that. :spank:

[lynne]

40. Reyes takes the intelligence out of the intelligence committee -

- guess they'll just have to call it The Committee from now on!

[kentuck]

41. It doesn't matter in the larger debate because...

Al Qaeda is a very small proportion of those fighting in Iraq. It almost like asking what we should be doing about the Quakers in Iraq.

[fujiyama]

46. It doesn't matter

if we want to continue making the same mistakes we have for six years now.

Shiites make up about 60% of Iraq. Sunnies make up about 30%. The current civil war is between the two groups. I'd say that makes the difference between the two groups quite pertinent.

Just because the republicans are ignorant doesn't mean we can afford to or believe we can be.

This is the same ignorance that made people think Saddam had something to do with Al Qaeda...

Reyes' knowledge (or lack thereof) on the issues of the committee he'll be chairing doesn't impress me or give me much hope. The guy is ignorantly calling for an "increase in troops to dismantle the militias". Does he know which militias those are?

[mitchtv]

43. It bodes ill

I heard the interview, he sounded like an idiot. Apparently intelligence is not prerequisite for the intelligence committee. Plus he wants to add more troops. The only bright side is, he can probably be told to do anything Nancy wants. Incidentally, Jane Harman deserved everything she got the fucking Lieberman Dem.She should have handed it to Murtha .

[fuzzyball]

44. Ever wonder why no muslim nation has won a war with a non-muslim

nation in almost 200 years? Before that we had muslim empires
stretching multiple continents. May be that is the real reason
muslims are fighting the "jihad" to try and regain some of that
old glory.

[Ignacio Upton]

53. Is there something in the water in Texas?

Reyes is acting like a Democratic and hispanic version of Bush.