Afghan beheaded for being "U.S. spy" in Pakistan

[BoarSpear]

Afghan beheaded for being "U.S. spy" in Pakistan

2 hours, 32 minutes ago

TANK, Pakistan (Reuters) - Militants in Pakistan beheaded an Afghan cleric they accused of spying for U.S. forces fighting insurgents in
Afghanistan, officials said on Wednesday.


The murdered cleric, Akhtar Usmani, 30, had spoken out against militancy in a Pakistani region on the Afghan border where some analysts say the government has virtually handed power to pro-Taliban militants.

Usmani was found dumped beside a road in the South Waziristan region, a hotbed of Islamist support to the west of the town of Tank, on Tuesday evening.

"The body was in a big bag while his head was placed nearby in the open," said the region's deputy administrator, Amin Akbar Khan.

A note found with the body accused Usmani of spying for the Americans, said another official who declined to be identified.

Pro-Taliban militants said Usmani was a prayer leader in a mosque in North Waziristan and who had criticized militancy.

"He recorded several cassettes in which he criticized us and the Taliban," a militant said by telephone. He declined to comment when asked who had killed Usmani.

Militants in North and South Waziristan have killed dozens of people they accused of being Pakistani government supporters or U.S. spies.

Many Taliban and al Qaeda militants fled to Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal lands from Afghanistan after U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban in 2001.

Pakistani forces tried to clear out foreign militants and subdue their Pakistani allies after 2001 and hundreds of people were killed. But the government later signed peace deals aimed at ending the fighting and stopping raids into Afghanistan.

Critics say the deals have given the militants free rein and led to the "Talibanisation" of a region that has become a haven for al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The government of President Pervez Musharraf, a major ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, defends the deals and dismisses concern about Talibanisation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228/wl_nm/pakistan_violence_dc_1

.....................................

Just in case anyone wonders why more Afghans or Iraqi's don't speak out against the Radicals.

[medic06]

That's funny. I remember being told on this forum that they don't speak out because they actually condoned terrorism

[BoarSpear]

That's funny. I remember being told on this forum that they don't speak out because they actually condoned terrorism

It just goes to show their level of understanding of the subject is rather....limited.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

That's funny. I remember being told on this forum that they don't speak out because they actually condoned terrorism

if that's in reference to Mike Brewer's recent posts i don't think that's a very fair or accurate assessment of what he was trying to point out.

[gregimotis]

if that's in reference to Mike Brewer's recent posts i don't think that's a very fair or accurate assessment of what he was trying to point out.

Nor do I. Maybe y'all could resist the urges to snipe each other... a little bit?

[BoarSpear]

if that's in reference to Mike Brewer's recent posts i don't think that's a very fair or accurate assessment of what he was trying to point out.

It speaks volumes to me that most of the articles you see written about this topic, cautioning against stereotypes and reminding us that the radicals are a minority, are not written by Muslims but by western scholars and journalists. Where are the clerics and muslim leaders? Why are they not trying to make the same case?

What would it take for the Islamic majority to denounce the terrorists who kill indiscriminately in the name of their God? What would it take for them to distance themselves from the terrorists who have twice used chemical attacks in Baghdad just in the last couple of days? And why are leading clerics who live there not screaming and denouncing these terrorists publicly every chance they get? If these terrorists are willing to release chlorine gas on their own capital city and kill however many thousands of innocent people that gas reaches, how can they be representative of a religion of peace?

If Muslims support (or refuse to speak out against) jihadists who kill kids, hide behind families, or blow up churches and slaughter nuns, they are evil people in my book.

If ANYONE does these things for ANY reason they're evil...
Of course if that goes against your leader who makes the wars current plans you might weaken your leaders goals if you don't support them, and that makes you bad for your country, not for the rest of the world but bad for your own country and leadership...
Remember this exchange?

It seems that you feel the men who weakened Hitlers rule by opposing military decisions that were sure to end in the demise of their country were bad men...

And no, this is not another opportunity for you to twist my comments. I said that the men who opposed Hitler were great for the rest of the world. But I asked you if you thought their actions were best for Hitler's Germany. The question isn't about what the rest of the world thinks. I'm sure Al-Qaeda loves it when people here oppose the President. I hardly think the opinion of Al-Qaeda makes them "good men." Again, if you could stay on track and focus on the question itself, maybe you wouldn't get distracted by outside issues and confuse my comments this way.

I do not buy for a second the notion that the insurgents and fanatics, representing 1% of Muslims in the world could stay in control if the other 99% of Muslims stood up with the rest of the non-Muslim world against radical extremists. You will not sell me on that idea. To put that in perspective, you're trying to get me to accept that 100,000 people are living in fear because one guy with a gun said he'd start shooting if everyone didn't stay in line? That's the percentage or ratio you're trying to sell, here? I'm sorry. I don't buy it. What's more, if the entire Muslim world is that susceptible to fear and terror, then maybe that's the tack we should be taking in dealing with them. I don't like that logic one bit, but if you're convinced that they're keeping their silence because they're afraid and nothing more, then we need to give them something to fear more than the extremists.

Sniping? Sorry if these quotes confused me.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

Boar, in all those quotes you posted Mike was pointing out some action(s) or attitude(s) that he felt was lacking on the part of peace loving Muslims. But by my reading, none of those quotes accused those peace loving Muslims of condoning terrorism. If i might offer my interpretation (please correct me if i'm wrong Mike) it seems like he's voicing that old sentiment that the greatest evil is the indifference of good men. it's not that they are condoning terrorism, it's that they don't condone terrorism and are not acting to stop it.
again, that's my interpretation of Mike's words, nothing more.

[Tom Yum]

The reason why the silent majority does nothing is because the 1% radical are willing to kill - anyone - to maintain their beliefs.

They intimidate the majority by setting examples: beheading those who speak out against them or severely torturing them.

It would take the unified efforts of the silent majority to destroy the 1% radical element, but they won't because they know they mean business, are easily motivated by fear and/or not willing to make the sacrifices.

On top of that, the radical elements would just grow new heads and new members.

I do see Mike's point, though.

The problem though, is that the silent majority has no power, no government backing...like the silent majority in Iraq have the U.S. forces to train their police force and fight off foreign insurgents.

From what I gather from press releases and maybe a few accounts, the silent majority have the U.S. forces as backing in Iraq as evidence in the Marines who do joint operations with them and the Green Berets who trained them.

[BoarSpear]

Boar, in all those quotes you posted Mike was pointing out some action(s) or attitude(s) that he felt was lacking on the part of peace loving Muslims. But by my reading, none of those quotes accused those peace loving Muslims of condoning terrorism. If i might offer my interpretation (please correct me if i'm wrong Mike) it seems like he's voicing that old sentiment that the greatest evil is the indifference of good men. it's not that they are condoning terrorism, it's that they don't condone terrorism and are not acting to stop it.
again, that's my interpretation of Mike's words, nothing more.

What I get from all this is the message is "you should speak out against those responsible for the problem or else you can be assumed to be in support of the behavior."

The message also appears to be "By remaining silent you support these actions and therefor you give momentum and support to the bad things by remaining silent."

Is that what you're saying you got from those posts? Maybe I Misunderstood Mike if thats what you think he meant.

[BoarSpear]

The reason why the silent majority does nothing is because the 1% radical are willing to kill - anyone - to maintain their beliefs.

They intimidate the majority by setting examples: beheading those who speak out against them or severely torturing them.

So your point is good men fear to do the right thing? In my book those that lack the courage to do the right thing and separate themselves by words and actions from the bad guys, aid the bad guys...If you aren't willing to stand up and risk the fight that comes whenever you try to free yourself from oppression, you will always be oppressed. How many times has a Nation been screwed by those that were supposed to protect them? If you wont take responsibility for your own freedom, perhaps you don't deserve others to fight and die to earn it for you in the first place.

[Tom Yum]

So your point is good men fear to do the right thing?

In my book those that lack the courage to do the right thing and separate themselves by words and actions from the bad guys, aid the bad guys...If you aren't willing to stand up and risk the fight that comes whenever you try to free yourself from oppression, you will always be oppressed. They may have been good people, but were overcome by fear of involvment.

How many times has a Nation been screwed by those that were supposed to protect them? If you wont take responsibility for your own freedom, perhaps you don't deserve others to fight and die to earn it for you in the first place.

Its true, Boar.

Good men do fear doing the right thing. It happens everyday.

Tim Mousel posted a video of a set up, where some guy was dragging a child around, who was yelling and crying "rape." Most of the people who were filmed, just walked by or walked by and paid attention for a bit, then decided it was none of their business.

There were finally two young men who passed by and knew something was wrong...so they looked at each other, whispered a few things, then proceeded to assault the guy...the guy stopped and let them know it was just an experiment done for television.

A good man who is also a warrior will also fear doing the right thing, but is able to overcome that fear and take action.

[BoarSpear]

Its true, Boar.

Good men do fear doing the right thing. It happens everyday. A good man who is a warrior will also fear doing the right thing, but is able to overcome that fear.

So you're saying the masses don't have the courage and integrity to stand up against evil when its unpopular or unsafe to do so, But some people do have those qualities and they're called warriors?

[Tom Yum]

So you're saying the masses don't have courage and integrity who stand up against evil when its unpopular or unsafe to do so, But some people do have those qualities and their called warriors?

Yes.

That's the best definition I can come up with at this point.

An example of this would be the men (and even some women!) in Iraq who volunteer for the Special Police Force with the intention of stopping foreign insurgents and making their cities peacful again.

[BoarSpear]

Yes.

That's the best definition I can come up with at this point.

An example of this would be the men (and even some women!) in Iraq who volunteer for the Special Police Force with the intention of stopping foreign insurgents and making their cities peacful again.

So the people who realize there is a problem and take whatever risk are necessary to make a stand and fight evil no matter the personal cost are a good thing and are called warriors? And the more people/warriors willing to do this the stronger the country/cause will be?

[gregimotis]

So the people who realize there is a problem and take whatever risk are necessary to make a stand and fight evil no matter the personal cost are a good thing and are called warriors? And the more people/warriors willing to do this the stronger the country/cause will be?

Fantastic series of posts.