Kubaissi on Danish TV (TV2)
Note Kubaissi's blaming of the Americans for this man's death.
UPDATE: Change that to "Note Kubaissi's sly suggestion that the Americans may have been responsible for this man's death." This is a distinction without a difference, as Kubaissi is clearly trying to hang responsibility for his death on the Americans, but for the record, no: he did not directly blame the Americans. He has, as they say in Washington, "plausible deniability." And it is worth about as much coming from him as it is coming from the pols.
COPENHAGEN (AFP) - A Danish businessman kidnapped in Iraq last week has been found dead, the Danish foreign ministry said.The man was captured by unidentified attackers while travelling with an Iraqi driver and a Dane of Iraqi origin on a road near the village of Al Taji outside Baghdad. The two others were not taken hostage.
"The ministry was informed overnight by coalition authorities that the Danish national was found dead by Iraqi police on April 12, 2004," a foreign ministry statement said.
It said the Danish government had no further details about the man's death nor information about his killers.
"The Iraqi police investigation has been rendered difficult by the situation in Iraq," it said.
Danish daily Politiken identified the man as 35-year-old Henrik Frandsen, who was in Iraq to start a water purification and electrical appliance store in the southern city of Basra.
The Confederation of Danish Industries has issued a warning discouraging Danish businessmen from travelling to Iraq.
Denmark was a loyal ally of the United States in the war on Iraq, and currently has 500 troops stationed in Basra under British command.
It was initially reported that the man was captured on April 13, but the foreign ministry now said that he was captured on April 10 and it was informed on April 11.
The ministry said that it had "worked intensely on the case since being informed of his capture, and had followed several leads."
It said it had been in close contact with the US military and Iraqi Governing Council to secure the Dane's release, and confirmed media reports that it had also been in contact with Sheikh Abdul Salam Kubaissi.
Kubaissi, a senior official of the Committee of Muslim Scholars, has emerged as a key player in efforts to release foreign hostages in Iraq, including two Japanese hostages who were freed on Saturday.
Interviewed in Politiken on Wednesday prior to the announcement of the Dane's death, Kubaissi said he did not believe the businessman was taken for political reasons "because then we would have heard about it".
He suggested that the man may have been killed by US troops.
"Maybe he's been killed by the Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when the Americans have their backs against the wall, they shoot and make no distinction between rebels, civilians and foreigners," Kubaissi said.
AFP = French Press Agency
Killed by the Americans? Typical hajii bullshit. When will these scumbags learn that thy look like fools in front of the world with their deaying culture of bullies?
Project of guilt onto anyone else possible is par for this course. Americans will always be blamed because they wish it were true. It must be true because we're all deranged cowboys, shooting from the hip regardless of our disciplined training. (Lack of impulse control is not an American trait in this part of the world.)
We are guilty of thwarting their ambitions. (How dare we upstart Americans do that!) Thus, anything they do in response to feeling thwarted is our fault.
He was probaby murdered because he LOOKED as if he could be an American, but as he wasn't, attempting to divide the coalition is their next best reason for homicide.
If you read the picture caption "Note Kubaissi's blaming of the Americans for this man's death." and the actual quote from Kubaissi "Maybe he's been killed by the Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time" you will find (if you had any reasonable education in English) that they say different things.
The picture caption leaves no room for doubt that Kubaissi is accusing US troops of killling the Danish man. Kubiassi though says no such thing. He speculates about the possibility that this "may" have taken place.
Now by conflating the two you have distorted the facts. I hope this kind of semantic disorder is not a regular feature on this page.
Of course they are projecting. By accusing Americans, they are trying to deflect accusations against themselves. Today terrorists murdered something like 68 people, among them very young children. Their attitude towards death is totally at odds with the West's. A way has to be found to use this against them. Any ideas?
My dear Lughad,
The actual quote from Kubaissi — "Maybe he's been killed by the Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time" — appears in English in the article posted. I made no attempt to conceal it. Nor do I see it, particularly in connection with his further remarks about Americans killing Iraqi civilians and others indiscriminately, as distorted by my own sentence.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Well, your caption says he is accusing the US of killing him, while the guy actually says that they *may* have killed him. That's not an accusation.
Are you seriously suggesting that, with all the firepower being thrown around, there's absolutely no chance that the US may have killed him?
Of course, it's about a thousand times more likely that the actual kidnappers did it, but hey, maybe our man Kubaissi said that, too. Media would not bother to print a "dog bites man" story like that. They print the juice.
So yeah, you did misrepresent him.
Well Bob if you run a picture caption saying "Note Kubaissi's blaming of the Americans for this man's death" you are leaving no room for doubt that Kubaissi came straight out and said the Americans did this. Now just for the record answer me this. Did Kubaissi directly accuse American troops of killing the Danish businessman?
My dear Lughad,
Said Kubaissi: "Maybe he's been killed by the Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when the Americans have their backs against the wall, they shoot and make no distinction between rebels, civilians and foreigners."
"Did Kubaissi directly accuse American troops of killing the Danish businessman?" No. But what is his intent in making the above statement except to blame the Americans for his death?
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
These killings, no matter who carried them out, will severely hamper the reconstruction of Iraq. If this continues no country will be willing to render assistance whether humanitarian or commercial.
It would be wise for the U.S. to leave. Let the Iraqis request assistance via the U.N. and guarantee the safety of those who come.
It will be a miracle if there is not a civil war out of which will surface yet another Islamic despot.
Lili
Bob, since you accept that Kubaissi did not directly accuse American troops of killing the Danish businessman will you consider removing the misleading picture caption from your page? To not do so would be seen by right thinking people as doing a disservice to the integrity of other (truthful) comments printed here.
Regards,
Lughad Sodhan Salbuidhe
Lughad -- why are you defending jihadist lies?
Update::::
"Jughad may have killed the Dane"
I believe Jughad may have killed the Dane for being in the wrong area. I don't know what Jughads intentions were.
Hey Jughad......how do you like it?
Actually, I dont care if you like it or not because if it was'nt you it would have been one of you peace loving brothers.
Jesus Christ loves you and me too:)
What lies? Please explain.
Alaska, I'm not even going to pretend to know what you were trying to say with your message.
Mr. Lugahd:
Many of the readers of this thread are offended that you would be either so obtuse or so maliciously deceitful as to post what you have this afternoon. Although it is technically possible that Mr. Politiken was killed by errant American gunfire, it is highly improbable given that he was kidnapped by unidentified forces before his body was found, and that IRG holdouts and insurgent terrorists have taken to kidnapping and -- in many cases -- executing non-Iraqis living in Iraq in the last two weeks.
The logical conclusion from the article and these posts is that Politiken was killed by terrorists, that Kubaissi attempts to implicate Americans when he knows they most certainly weren't responsible while saying nothing about the true killers.
I wish you would express grief over the death of an innocent man with the same fervor that you defend an obfuscator. In your efforts to present yourself as a defender of responsible journalism, you leave readers with no other choice but to recognize you as a terrorist sympathizer and an advocate for the killing of innocents. Perhaps you could reassure us by letting us know who you think was responsible for his murder, and who, in your opinion, Kubaissi thinks is responsible for his murder.
Lughad,
Both of your comments are perfect responses that we Americans have (Israelis also) every time we are accused (or implied) of these autrocities.
If everytime someone dies or something happens we blame you, or your people after a while we believe it and even look for it to happen just so we can blame you. Now you know how the Israelis/Americans feel.
Life is bigger than hate.
Remember humans can justify every action right or wrong.
Chayan Eitan--"Their attitude towards death is totally at odds with the West's. A way has to be found to use this against them."
I agree.
Along the lines that acting in anger makes you careless and reckless, I think it's to our benefit to keep them as angry as we can. We should be able to exploit that anger through their carelessness.
I've read about the contact with pigs...I don't if it's true or not but if they think it will keep them reaching paradise--why not? Or, any other belief they have that could be turned on them...
Good smackdown, Alex..
..simple fact is . to reiterate; the kidnapping
terrorists are responsible for his death ..
Even 'IF' an American bullet killed him. To hint otherwise is islamofacist horse**** deserving of condemnation.
pigsuponmohammed
The last sentence blaming American soldiers for killing this guy is a blatent lie.He was kidnapped by a group of terrorist who are exacuting their prisoners on tv.The media just goes along with his lie further proving their stupidity.Maybe he had a heart attack or was struck by lightning.The terrorist killed him just like they killed the other people.We should let our Marines remove the remainder of the scum on the streets of Iraq.
Their seems to be a misconception in the world that muslims are not killers. It is surprising that the danish government will not come out and say that this man was killed by muslims. Why can't we get this straight; muslims kill for islam and they will continue to kill all non-muslims and unbelievers.
My dear Lughad,
May I ask why you keep calling me "Bob"? Have we met?
I have already posted an "Update" that explains in greater detail what is meant by the statement. That, in my view, is sufficient.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Mr Alex, can you quote me the remark that offended you and I shall try to put it to rights.
You write: "Although it is technically possible that Mr. Politiken was killed by errant American gunfire, it is highly improbable given that he was kidnapped by unidentified forces before his body was found, and that IRG holdouts and insurgent terrorists have taken to kidnapping and -- in many cases -- executing non-Iraqis living in Iraq in the last two weeks" which leads me to think that you assume I have offered my opinion on this. I have said nothing whatsoever about the likelihood of either of these two groups being responsible. I can assure you that I have not expressed an opinion on the subject whatsoever.
What I did say was that Bob's picture caption states that "Note Kubaissi's blaming of the Americans for this man's death."
Whereas the AFP story has a quote from Kubaissi stating that "MAYBE he's been killed by the Americans because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Please note the word "maybe" in the last sentence.
Please also note that in the English language the former is conidered definitive ie Kubaissi said they did it.
And the latter is speculative ie they may have done it.
I suspect you may have mistakenly believed that I was endorsing the views of Kubaissi. However a careful rereading of what I have written previosly should set your mind at ease.
My reason for writing was to inform Bob that there was a factual inaccuracy on his site, a definitive paraphrasing of a speculative quote which could lead to a distorted inference being drawn. It is a matter of journalistic accuracy. We would not want Bob to experience the same pitfalls as Jayson Blair.
As far as being labeled a terrorist sympatiser for simply pointing out that a man's words were misrepresented (whether they are true or not) I'm afraid you may have lost the run of yourself. If I was an editor in the Washington Post and that story and that clearly inaccurate picture caption arrived on my desk, I'm pretty sure my colleagues would not dare to level such a charge against me for correcting it. But clearly the standards on this site are easily sacrificed for the opportunity to make a crass accusation.
Are you willing to overlook glaring inaccuracies merely because the inaccuracy fits with your own prejudice.
I am happy your logic has helped you arrive at an opinion regarding who shot the Danish man. I however, would prefer to wait for the results of an investigation before shelling out the blame.
Mr Alasska
I still have trouble understanding your first sentence. As to the second. Why do you blame me for what happens in Israel or America?
Mr Skeptic, to the best of my knowledge the pig thing covers other semitic religions (I'm almost certain it is adhered to in Judaism).
Mr Willyseaweed, I'd stick to Mr Alex's logic if I was you.
That will do (only just) Bob and no we have never met.
Goodbye
Lughad Sodhan Salbuidhe
My dear Lughad Sodhan Salbuidhe,
"That will do (only just) Bob and no we have never met."
I am sorry to inform you that it was not done in order to meet your specifications.
What you seem unaware of or unwilling to accept is Kubaissi was not dispassionately raising all the possible hypotheses in this case. He was blaming America and using weasel words to avoid the charge that he was doing just that. My declining to play his game has nothing to do with journalistic standards.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
I wouldn't change anything for this Lughad catso. Do Muslims correct themselves publicly? Do Muslims admit being wrong? Hell no......leave it the way it is.......we get blamed for everything anyway.
That's what we get when we're on top of the mountain looking at all the sheep, goats, and camels.
Please, leave it up......Mr. Spencer
Mr Watson I have no idea why you would want to sit on a mountain and look at sheep. It is not for me to question why.
As for whether Muslims correct themsleves publicly, I'm sure many do. But whether they do or not should not have any bearing on the matter. It is a matter of integrity. Muslims who make false statements should be admonished in the same way as anyone else.
As for catso you've lost me there.
Bob I believe I have made my point and the fact that you have rectified the situation is commendable.
Regards,
Lughad Sodhan Salbuidhe
Catso, Mr. Lunkhead, is Italian, feel free to look it up.
Mr Watson having relied on your maturity as an adult I am very disappointed with your last remark.
I just have to laugh at this Kubaissi guy! Hey Kubaissi, maybe Henrik Frandsen (no disrespect to Mr. Frandsen or the wonderful Danes) was killed in the melee of Iraqi Baathists fighting over who would use Frandsen as a human shield since he helped the 10 year old girl escape. You know how it is when insurgents/Baathists have their back against the wall and have to face someone who can shoot back.
It seems that Hoodie has changed his name to Lughad to confuse us. Feint and parry!
Now,after being liberated from the despotic regime of Sadam,the iraqis are saying loud and clear,for the world to hear:leave us alone,we want all foreigners out,those who won`t leave will be captured and killed,etc.
Should the coalition forces do just that,the country would be destroyed by a bloody civil war,and it would fall back into the stone age.
Then and only then,when in deep need,the hypocritical,murderous,infamous,fanatic iraqis will ask US,the civilized world to please come back,give humanitarian relief,help us,save us,etc.
We should let them kill each other,the more the better,and then,let the few survivors die of starvation and disease.
Just keep telling it like it is, Robert.
The ones who get it need no explanations.
Those who don't get it , then there can never be enough. You do a great service for us all.
Mr Richard B, your happiness to accept falsehoods without question shows you in a very bad light. Mendacity is a bad trait but knowingly accepting the mendacious is worthy of contempt.
Mr EPG, I am not and never have been known as Hoodie. The reasons for your confusion may lie a little closer to home. Fencing is clearly not your strong suit.
When the colonists wanted freedom from King Charles, they fought with everything they had. The French (that was a different crowd of French guys, these were brave and honorable ones) came over to help. The Poles came over to help. Paul Revere didn't sit at home smoking a pipe and waiting for it all to be over. No, the future Americans were fighting and dying. But the Iraqis want to sit home and wait while Jidahist mindcontrolled nutcases pour into their country committing more atrocities and then blame the only people willing to die for their freedom--the Americans. You have to be willing to fight and die for your country's liberation from inhuman dictators. Freedom has a price. The majority of the Iraqi population doesn't seem to get this equation.
O/T
Yo, Lunkhead..looks like Lyon, France sent (another) one of your buddies packin'..from todays Seattle Times..
France expels Muslim cleric who preached wife beating
LYON, France — France expelled a Muslim cleric to his native Algeria yesterday after he said stoning and beating of adulterous wives were allowed as punishments by the Quran, even if French law did not.
Abdelkader Bouziane, 52, had lived in France since 1979 and had 16 children by two wives there.
He was deported with an escort on a direct flight to Algiers yesterday, officials said.
Bouziane was the fifth cleric expelled from France this year in a crackdown on preachers suspected of spreading radical Islam among the country's 5 million Muslims.
"I'm very pleased with this decision," said Andre Gerin, mayor of the Lyon suburb of Venissieux where Bouziane preached.
"It will be a very strong signal against fundamentalism, against radicals and all those who spoil the life in our town," the mayor said.
Lughad - Everyone's a comedian!
To Bob and anyone else who's interested here's an exerpt from Bob (Robert Spencer's) Q&A session on this site:
Q: What can we do about this threat?
A: Many things, but what we must do above all is remain true to our principles of freedom and equality of rights and dignity for all. These ideas and related ones are what set us apart from global jihadists. If we discard them in order to fight the jihadists, we risk erasing the distinction between the two camps.
Now I hope you don't adopt a relativist approach to equality of rights.Kubaissi surely has the right to have his words reproduced without distortion just as everyone in the west does. You have discarded Kubaissi's right in this case (see my posting at the top of this page). You are beginning to turn into the thing you abhor.
Why is there no discussion here of relativist Christian ideologies, which advise people of the approaching rapture alongside discussions of relativist Islamic ideology? Should this battle not be fought on two fronts?
EPG you're not making any sense.
"YO" willydude, you must have the wrong Lughad. My buddies are safe and well here with me watching a football match.
Is Bob on holiday?
lughead said: "definitive paraphrasing of a speculative quote which could lead to a distorted inference being drawn. It is a matter of journalistic accuracy. We would not want Bob to experience the same pitfalls as Jayson Blair."
it is interesting that you would defend the speculative kubaissi whose comments not only are reminiscent of the press conferences of baghdad bob, but his unwarranted speculations can and likely will result in swaying opinion against americans -- thus placing him in the camp of the enemy. in this context as well as the larger picture, robert's projection that kubaissi is blaming americans is quite accurate.
lughead continues: "As far as being labeled a terrorist sympatiser for simply pointing out that a man's words were misrepresented (whether they are true or not) I'm afraid you may have lost the run of yourself."
given my above argument, you are a terrorist sympathizer as your mind has a kneejerk response that defends a duplicitous -- and therefore enemy -- mouthpiece like kubaissi.
lughead continues: "If I was an editor in the Washington Post and that story and that clearly inaccurate picture caption arrived on my desk, I'm pretty sure my colleagues would not dare to level such a charge against me for correcting it."
you obviously do not pay much attention to the washington post or the new york times or los angeles times for that matter. these once stellar publications have descended into the depths of agenda journalism and have become partisan organs with left-wing slants consistently shown in headlines and presentation of new. bad analogy.
"I am happy your logic has helped you arrive at an opinion regarding who shot the Danish man. I however, would prefer to wait for the results of an investigation before shelling out the blame."
if only the one you defend -- that would be kubaissi in case you forgot -- had you same approach, i'm sure he would not be fomenting anti-american feelings through his irresponsible speculation.
you demonstrate unfounded arrogance in your stubborn determination to continually call robert "bob" even though he had the grace to politely point out he prefers otherwise. i can speculate that you may have picked up this trait by working phones in a boiler room selling some sort of scam.
your continued uncouth and gausche behaviour on this site toward the director and my other friends who blog here regularly have made me decide that i vote to blackball you!
Ted as I have clearly stated I do not endorse Kubaisi's views I am merely defending his right to have his views represented without distortion.
Robert has written about the need for equality of rights I just want him to stand by this statement. It is a small thing to ask.
As for your charge that The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are distorting news, well that may be true I don't read those papers so I don't know, but it should have no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of statements maded here.
As for being "arrogant" for calling Robert Bob can I direct you to his original posting at the top of the page which reads and I quote "posted by Bob". My original posting in response to this was directed to "Bob."
You take issue with my "uncouth and gausche" behaviour on this site, yet you refer to me as "lughead" when my name is Lughad. I have variously been called Lunkhead, and Catso. I have of course responded in kind but are you going to be consistent and take all of us including yourself for this behaviour?
You may blackball me if you wish but please, before you do, try to debunk my argument before censoring me.
As Robert say on his Q&A page "Q: What can we do about this threat?
A: Many things, but what we must do above all is remain true to our principles of freedom and equality of rights and dignity for all. These ideas and related ones are what set us apart from global jihadists. If we discard them in order to fight the jihadists, we risk erasing the distinction between the two camps."
Remain true to the principle of equality of rights.
My dear Lughad,
I have no intention of getting caught up in this silliness, but I do think it important to note that the note above marked "Posted by Bob" was not the original posting, was not written by me, and that no one should think that I can be found at the email address attached to that posting.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Robert my apologies it was a genuine mistake. When you responded to my post directed to Bob I made the assumption that you were one and the same.
Now to the more serious matter; whether you take a relativist approach to equality of rights. Do you accept that Mr Kubaisi has the same right to have his words or opinions repeated without distortion that is bestowed upon others? To argue that he doesn't would go against the advice you have given on your Q& A page. This is hardly silliness. It is a matter of consistency and your integrity.
My dear Lughad,
I have already said everything I am going to say about this. Here it is again, for your convenience: "What you seem unaware of or unwilling to accept is Kubaissi was not dispassionately raising all the possible hypotheses in this case. He was blaming America and using weasel words to avoid the charge that he was doing just that. My declining to play his game has nothing to do with journalistic standards."
If you choose to regard that as inconsistent with the statement in my FAQ that you keep quoting, or with my integrity, that is your affair. For my part, I do not.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Now my apologies if this is getting a little uncomfortable for you. I was going to let the thing go until I looked at your FAQ. I am shocked therefore that you would even attempt to dismiss this matter as silly.
If you are not prepared to stand by your own professed principle of upholding people's rights equally how can anyone take your views seriously. Why can't you just accept that you made a mistake? Show some contrition and be done with it.
For the record, do you accept that Mr Kubaisi has the same right to have his words or opinions repeated without distortion that others are granted?
"If you choose to regard that as inconsistent with the statement in my FAQ that you keep quoting, or with my integrity, that is your affair. For my part, I do not." Is this because you take a relativist approach?
As an opiniion former you have a certain degree of responsibility to make sure that you stand by the statements you make . Are you going to abdicate this responsibility?
Your response does nothing to address the apparent divergence between what you say on your FAQ and what you said of Kabaisi
"What you seem unaware of or unwilling to accept is Kubaissi was not dispassionately raising all the possible hypotheses in this case."
Don't people have the right not to be taken to task about what they never said?
How do we know he didn't raise other scenarios? The story you provide is a lift from AFP. You don't even know the question the journalist put to him or what the journalist thought was the strongest line to nose the story with.
I wonder what AFP would think if they knew you were using their copy to misrepresent somebody's statements.
I must say I'm surprised you would even try to use the argument "look at what he didn't say and ignore what he said that I distorted".
Why don't you just come clean. You were caught distorting the guys words. Have some pride. Accept it put it to rights and then move on. (Now if you still think you're riight you're also thinking I've slandered you. Have I?.)
My dear Lughad:
1. Don't be silly. I called him on his implication. Since when are people free from having their words and ideas analyzed? This is not a news site in the first place. It precisely a site featuring our analyses of news stories.
2. This is what I think his words mean. If you think they mean something else, start you own site and explain it to us.
3. The "Update" has been up there for days, acknowledging that he didn't blame the Americans straight out.
4. Now that is REALLY all you are going to hear from me about this.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer