Where is the political will to deal with al-Sadr, whose henchmen are at the epicenter of this activity? From the New York Times, also known as the New Duranty Times:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 11 — Iran is pressing Shiite militias here to step up attacks against the American-led forces in retaliation for the Israeli assault on Lebanon, the American ambassador to Iraq said Friday. Iran may foment even more violence as it faces off with the United States and United Nations over its nuclear program in the coming weeks, he added.
The Iranian incitement has led to a surge in mortar and rocket attacks on the fortified Green Zone, said the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad.
[...]
The Shiite guerrillas behind the recent attacks are members of splinter groups of the Mahdi Army, the powerful militia created by the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, Mr. Khalilzad said.
The splinter groups have ties to Iran, which is governed by Shiite Persians, and to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite Arab militia in Lebanon that has been battling Israel for a month, the ambassador added.
There is evidence that Iran is pushing for more attacks, he said, without offering any specifics. But he acknowledged that there was no proof that Iran was directing any particular operations by militias here.
“Iran is seeking to put more pressure, encourage more pressure on the coalition from the forces that they are allied with here, and the same is maybe true of Hezbollah,” Mr. Khalilzad said in an interview Friday in his home inside the Green Zone.
His remarks are the first public statements by a senior Bush administration official directly linking violence in Iraq to American support of Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon, and to growing pressure by the United States over Iran’s nuclear program. Until now, American officials have not publicly drawn a direct connection between Shiite militant groups here and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran (piss be upon him).
AKA
Madman ArmageddonJihad
Madmouth I'm-a-damn-nutjob
Another day in paradise. Oh well more muslim assholes will die and get there 72 year old virgins!
Yet again, more evidence Iran is the seat of decision for Islam.
WAIT THERES MORE...THIS FROM REUTERS......."We are happy for the ceasefire in Lebanon. But the resolution is not balanced," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference.
"It does not condemn the Zionist regime (Israel) and its crimes in Lebanon."
Asked about the call for disarming Hizbollah, Asefi said: "This is a totally unreasonable demand. It is illogical."
"Let us not forget that as long as there is occupation there is resistance," he added.
Israel accuses Iran of providing Hizbollah with missiles used against civilian and military targets. Although Iran armed and funded Hizbollah during the 1980s, Tehran now insists it provides only moral support to the group.
Opposition to Israel was one of the founding principles of the Islamic Republic. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060813/ts_nm/mideast_iran_lebanon_dc
Iranian cleric calls for promotion of Islam as a peaceful religion" HA! Maybe he should tell it to the muslims! And killing babies sure doesnt help your "image"! Nasty beast!
In 27 countries throughout the world, Muslims are engaged in Jihad, or “holy war”. In this supposed “holy war”, non-believers are butchered by the millions… and this is supposed to be the will of Allah?
The word "assassin" comes from the Muslim faith. They use their children for bombs. The use their wives and sisters for bombs. They murder each other. Women are stoned to death for being raped. They teach their children to die as martyrs in their schools. Many countries don't allow women to read or drive cars. They are slaves and have no rights under the rules of the ISLAMIC religion.
Everyone in the World is wrong EXCEPT THE MUSLIMS - CHRISTIANS vs. MUSLIMS in Nigeria, the Philliphines, Spain, France, Pakistan, Egypt, the Balkans, Russia, and Indonesia, - JEWISH vs. MUSLIMS in Israel, and the once owned Muslim Palestine.. - Buddhists vs. muslim in Thailand, Mynammar, and Sri Lanka - HINDU's vs. MUSLIMS in Kashmir and India. --- Whats common - MUSLIMS - There the worlds ASSHOLES
Muslims, ISLAM and Allah always lose! Get over it Biorabbi
Death to Muslims - 3096, Israel 340 - Israel Won! GO IDF!!! Time to party!!!
Khalilzad's remarks are silly. Iran needs no excuse to persuade Moqtada al-Sadr, who should have been eliminated by the Americans three years ago, and now they have missed their chance, to attack anyone he perceives as an enemy. He was from the very first a declared enemy of the hated American Infidels, and that battle in Najaf several years ago showed that even as the Americans were doing the work of the Shi'a for them, fighting the Sunnis who refused to acquiesce in the new order (with the Americnas, ever confused, confusing those Sunnis, who represent almost all of the Sunni population of Iraq, with the much smaller group of Al-Zarqawi's domestic and non-Iraqi supporters).
Not only is his remark silly, but it is dangerous. There are those who may wish to believe that the Administration's policy could succeed but for those pesky Israelis getting in the way by daring to attempt to defend themselves (after some 3,200 missiles have been shot onto their cities, their villages, their kibbutzes) and daring to try to remove the 13,000 or so missiles carefully built up in the armory of Hezbollah by Syria and Iran over the past six years.
Moqtada al-Sadr is not "retaliating" here but doing what he has been doing all along. The American troops can handle Moqtada al-Sadr -- or, if they prefer, the Sunnnis if left alone will no doubt do it far more ruthlessly, for their own good and sufficient reasons.
But there is a form of "retaliation" in Iraq that should worry the Americans. That is the kind that comes from Iranian agents already in Iraq, or from Iranian forces ready to enter Iraq. And those forces, if armed with the same kind of anti-tank weapons and missiles that have been supplied by Hezbollah, should certainly give the American army pause. And unless that army withdraws from Iraq, it will be held hostage and, no doubt, will inhibit what is required without further delay, and certainly should not be put off until there is a change of administration, with the attendant worry that in the transition, focus on Iran will be lost, and that a new American President will be consumed with the effort ot extricate American troops from Iraq, and put off still further what is essential.
What is essential, what dwarfs anything in Iraq, is the need to degrade as much as possible, and hence to delay as much as possible, the Iranian nucelar project. Appeasers of the Lt. Gen. (ret'd.) William Odom variety, keep insisting that there is no point to bombing Iran's nuclear sites. Why? Why is there no point, even if the entire thing cannot be destroyed? Of course it can be set back, perhaps set back until the regime collapses or Iran itself is subject to such fissiparous forces within, and to the problem of a disintegrating Iraq next door, that like the Iraqi nuclear project that never recovered from Israel's 1981 attack, the nuclear project may never be successfully resurrected. Those who keep saying that "nothing can be done" are appeasers, pure and simple, and it is fascinating to consider Odom's notion, or rather the suicide note he wishes Israel to sign, by which Iran's nuclear potential will be given up "
in "exchange" for the voluntary (or does Odom wish to force it? No doubt, having his views, he does indeed) nuclear disarming of Israel --which of course would be suicidal, and all intelligent people know that. Either Odom is not intelligent, or he does not mind seeing Israel disappearing from the face of the earth. Those who have a somewhat wider view of what constitutes the Western world, and its wellsprings, realizing how essential the survival of Israel is to that Western world, and to its morale, to its powers of civilizational recuperation, and who further understand how such a disarming would whet, not state, Arab and Muslim appetites, and encourage a triumphalism not only vis-a-vis Israel, but everywhere, especially in Western Europe, will deplore the assorted odoms proffering their sinister and silly (from the point of view of those eager to weaken the camp of Islam) advice.
Iran will do, in Iraq, whatever it wishes to harm the Infidels and to promote its own, Shi'a interests. And Moqtada al-Sadr, whom apparently Khalilzad does not realize is among the least attentive, of Iraqi Shi'a, to the desires of Iran. Al-Maliki and Al-Hakim are far more beholden to Iran, and exhibit far less of an Iraqi nationalist impulse than does Moqtada al-Sadr, but why be surprised when an American Ambassador in Baghdad fails to comprehend even the most elementary things about Iraq and the internal forces that are fighting over power and wealth? You didn't really think Khalilzad or the Administration would understand Moqtada al-Sadr, would understand that he is less a puppet of Iran than other, outwardly more acceptable Shi'a leaders, did you?
Don't be silly. Abandon all hope, ye who enter Official Washington.
Hugh, you make me laugh, Israel will never and I mean never disappear off the face of the map! Get a grip man!
Odom is very intelligent, trouble is Hugh your not!
MUST READ - SEND EVERYWHERE
Here is some very serious food for thought!!!
Here is one of the best analyses of "the war" so far. Take the time to read it and digest what this military retiree is saying.
Please take the time to read the attached essay by Dr. Vernon Chong.
It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the war in Iraq. If you have any doubts please
open your mind to his essay and give a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues (Iran's nuclear program,
immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc.).
I had no idea who Dr. Chong is, or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they
are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon, of all things, and past Commander of
Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)
*********************************************************************
***********************************************
Muslims, Terrorist And The USA: A Different Spin On Iraq War This WAR
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes
WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.
The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years
prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon
Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy
1998; Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that
during the period from
1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan,
Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or
their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What percent of the population of the world is Muslim?
25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the
administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000
Polish priests).
(see Http/www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or
anyone else.
The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing-- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not
fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about
our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The
plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are
impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier fort them.
They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain
did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for
France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to
take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to
recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no
way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow
profiling [this is as stupid as fishing in a parking lot, bathtub or swimming pool because PETA doesn't like having people fish where they
are most likely to find them!! - ]. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are
going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil
rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see
us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal.It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great
damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of
enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more
recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the
"humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome
burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely
oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels!
That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we
believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands
tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we
are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion,
freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in
one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall
of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from
any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away,
politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or
even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.
Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It
is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.
After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!
[If you agree with this, please pass it along.]
I would monitor Ambassador Kahlilzad very carefully. Where are his real loyalties? In private meetings with Iraqi officials, is he sympathizing with his fellow Muslims about US support for Israel? Hatred for Jews seems to be passed on in mother's milk for Muslim babies. Is he privately promoting deals (peace at any cost) with the twin evils of the South, Al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr? He seems to talk a smooth talk; Like so much in Iraq, I have my doubts.
President Ahmadinejad (Napoleon complex) and I. Sure, he's a good three-foot-six shorter than me, but what the man lacks in stature, he makes up for in rabid anti-Semitism.
President Ahmadinejad (Napoleon complex), in my humble opinion, his height - or lack thereof - is really a positive, because nothing fuels a tyrant's megalomaniacal, genocidal rage like a good, old-fashioned Napoleon complex.
And who are we to judge if President Ahmadine (Napoleon complex)jad gets a little hot-headed from time to time? I know, I know; being a ruthless dictator sounds like a cushy job, but the man lives in a virtual pressure cooker.
Think about it: You're - President Ahmadinejad (Napoleon complex)- responsible for repressing an entire nation and further destabilizing a volatile region of the world - how do you blow off a little steam? You threaten to wipe Israel off the map. Sticks and stones, people! I say, try walking a mile in the man's tiny shoes before you criticize him.
The only question is: Do we use nukes or old fashioned high explosives to solve the Persian Problem?
Thanks to solsticewitch13 for posting the essay by MAJOR GENERAL (DR.) VERNON CHONG - definitely must read material. Though written over a year ago, every word still rings true; particularly the following:
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!"
Does Department of Defense and State Department come to mind? It is quite simple, really. The green zone in Iraq is 'our Israel.' Are we going to continue to play nice with al-Sadr or are we going to have the balls to eliminate him and his Mahdi Army? †
solsticewitch13 I also thank you for that post. Bohemond_1069..I would like to see a few MOAB's first..just to wake them up. Then turn'em into glass.
I must give credit to Iran. Their encirclement and war on Israel via proxies is a pretty good strategy. Whole idea is grind down Israel. Wear it out. Death of a thousand cuts.
"There was an old Chinese torture called Ling chi, a death by a thousand cuts. The cuts are all small, but in the end the person dies."
Death by a thousand cuts
WIKIPEDIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_a_thousand_cuts
Why not simply say that any dirty tricks by Iran wll result in a goodly portion of the USA's dumping a goodly portion of its nuclear arsenal on Tehran, Mashad, Qom, Bandar Abbas, Tabriz, Isfahan, Shiraz, Hamadan, Kharq, etc., until the Iranian population is reduced by at least 60%? After all, Iran put itself clearly beyond the pale of any civilized treatment in taking diplomats as hostages, and in electing as president one of the perps.
dennisw - sorry to break your bubble but the only thing I see - Death by a thousand cuts - are Muslims dying in record numbers?
Muslims killing Muslims all over the world, Muslims blowing themselves up as suicide bombers to obtain there long awaited 72 year old nasty virgins, and all in the name of Allah
We can but watch and laugh! Islam is the only thing dying as the world, and the crowd goes "oooooooh!"
The situation (resolution) empowers Iran--the main victor. It was not condemned in the U.N. action although it is clear that Iran was the engine behind this war.
Marisol The Shi'ite problem in Iraq is not just Mogtada al Sadr and his Mehdi Army.. the Iranians are playing us big time.. their version of good cop, bad cop with al Sadr playing the black hat, more worrisome is the real Iranian satrapy and stooge, the "white hats" of The Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq or SCIRI and the Da'wa Party, both of which are headed by Iranian Ayatollahs and representatives Ayatollah al Sistani and Ayatollah al Hakim, with the "secular" (but obedient and compliant Shi'ites) of Al Maliki, Alawi, and Chalibi (the neo con pet, wherever he is) all in attendance.