This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BAGHDAD 003008 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INR/R/MR, NEA/PPD, NEA/PPA, NEA/AGS, INR/IZ, 
INR/P 
 
E.0. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO IZ
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: IRAQ TERROR CONSTITUTION; BAGHDAD 
 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: The major themes in the daily newspapers on 
July 20 were the constitutional committee's preparations 
for the referendum and drafting the constitution, and the 
latest developments of the security situation. END SUMMARY. 
 
----------------- 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
----------------- 
 
¶A. "Clarity in London and ambiguity in Baghdad" (Al-Bayyan, 
7/20) 
¶B. "Wrong message" (Al-Fourat, 7/20) 
 
---------------------- 
SELECTED COMMENTARIES 
---------------------- 
 
¶A. "Clarity in London and ambiguity in Baghdad" (7/20) 
 
Al-Bayyan (affiliated with Islamic Ad-Da'wa Party led by 
Ibrahim Al-Jafari) published a third-page editorial by 
Salim Rasool about Muslim scholars' attitude toward 
terrorist operations in London and Baghdad: 
 
"Muslim scholars from different sects in London have signed 
a statement in which they condemned the recent terrorist 
operation.  The scholars regard the perpetrators of those 
attacks as criminals who do not belong in Islam. Most 
Muslim's agree that the terrorists have distorted Islam by 
conducting such deeds.  However, the scholar's public 
declaration has a deeper meaning as well.  It is an 
indication of how the London Muslim community was also a 
victim of the London bombings. 
 
Western extremists now accuse every Muslim of being a 
terrorist and the London Muslim community is under attack 
from these people.  It was not the terrorist activities 
that convinced the Muslim scholars to issue their statement 
but rather the negative consequences to the Muslim 
community in England.  According to the scholars, these 
actions committed in the name of Islam are criminal in 
London, but not, it seems, in Baghdad. 
 
Why hasn't the entire Muslim world come out against 
terrorist activities in Iraq?  Why aren't there any 
statements from Muslim scholars condemning the bombings and 
the beheadings?  The situation in Iraq requires those 
scholars to announce their attitude against terrorism and 
bloodshed in Iraq. Some senior scholars like the Al-Azhar 
Mosque sheikh and the Saudi mufti condemned terrorism in 
Iraq. However, since those statements came from individuals 
they accomplished nothing. 
 
If all Muslim scholars spoke out in a united voice against 
terrorism, terrorists would not be able to recruit any more 
Muslims to fight in Iraq. Recently at a conference held in 
Amman, none of the many Islamic figures in attendance spoke 
the truth about terrorism.  None of them condemned the 
terrorist spreading death in Iraq. 
 
The Iraqi people wish that all Muslims would unite against 
the Iraqi bloodshed.  Terrorism operations in Iraq are 
committed in the name of resistance however Iraqis are 
dying in vain and the terrorist are criminals. 
 
The Iraqi Muslim people want the senior Muslim scholars to 
answer one question.  Why do they clearly condemn the 
London bombings while maintaining an ambiguous attitude 
concerning terrorism in Iraq?" 
 
¶B. "Wrong message" (7/20) 
 
Al-Fourat (independent, anti coalition) published a second- 
page editorial by Majed Fadhel Al-Zuboon about the 
constitution: 
 
"We hear many opinions these days about the Iraqi 
constitution from Iraqi politicians and the general 
population in Iraq.  We hear that it is supposed to be 
ratified by the Iraqi people through a referendum.  We hear 
that there are many different groups trying to work 
together and that there are many different opinions as to 
what the document it should look like. 
 
The Iraqi people seem to be resolved to actively 
participate in the constitutional process despite the 
difficulties involved.  Their participation is important 
because the constitution will be the blueprint for the 
future of Iraq.  It will determine both the national and 
foreign policies of Iraq for a long while to come.  Indeed, 
this process requires local media outlets to educate the 
people about how to make the constitutional process a 
success. 
 
By focusing on sectarianism and power sharing, I think that 
the former Governing Council, which was directly supervised 
by civil administrator Paul Bremer, gave Iraqis the wrong 
message.  The experiment of the Governing Council has 
created sectarianism and sectarianism will lead to a 
separated Iraq. The right to establishing federal 
territories in Iraq can only be ratified by the Iraqi 
people. I think that the world will soon learn that the 
Iraqis do not want their country to be split up into 
sections.  They want a united Iraq.  Regarding the national 
assembly, we believe that that each province must have its 
own representation.  The government must not be organized 
according to electoral lists. This process will move us 
away from sectarianism and ethic power sharing.  The seeds 
of these evils were planted by Bremer and has led to our 
current situation of suffering and pain." 
 
SATTERFIELD