Gates says US underestimated depth of Sunni-Shiite divisions

Jeffersonian democracy is a tough one to bring to Iraq. The Sunni walkout doesn't help, nor does the terminal naivete of out high government officials. I just wonder what they're high on.
Even if the Iraqis reconcile with each other, will they reconcile enough with us Infidels to resist an alliance with Iran, to not support Hamas and Hezbollah, to not support Islamist terrorists, to not cause problems? Nah, they're Muslims.

I will save Hugh the trouble of reposting an "I-told-you-so":

"We did what we could under the illusion that hospitals, schools, power-grids, water-treatment plants, soccer balls and toys would make things better, and might even win friends. We were under the illusion that large numbers, not tiny numbers, of Iraqis might turn out to be genuinely grateful to the Americans who rescued them from the murderous despot. We were under the illusion that there was an actual nation called Iraq, and that the reason the Shi'a voted was because they had suddenly become converted to democracy, and not because they knew they constituted 60% of the population and would gain power that way when they could not, at the moment, gain it through open warfare. We were under the illusion that the transfer of power from Sunni to Shi'a would mean nothing to Sunni Arab states, and that they would be delighted to learn all about democracy and suchlike from this Iraq-the-Model we were so expensively, and wastefully, creating."
--posted by Hugh Fitzgerald
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008467.php

Begs the question whether Muslims overestimate Islam's ability to create a unified caliphate.

Three things: first, having never lived under a despotic regime such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I'm not sure what effect decades of such despotism has done to the pscyhe of the Iraqi citizens, second, I don't think we can even say "Iraqi Citizen" as it it all too obvious that most "Iraqi citizens" identify themselves by their "tribe" and third, the US government's naivete again forces me to emphasize that the so-called "Iraqis" belong to one of the three great world religions (per George Bush, et al) and therefore, this religious belief puts them on the same footing as those of Judeo-Christians here in the West. It does not and never will. They are not like us. To paraphrase Osama, we value life while Muslims value death.

I still dont get the rift. I know its over the succession of Mo after he died. But other than that, whats the big deal. Its 1400 years ago. Dont get me wrong, Im not complaining. Its better that they fight each other. Do Shiites and Sunnis have other differences so pronounced that they cant stop killing each other? Honest question.

I still dont get the rift. I know its over the succession of Mo after he died. But other than that, whats the big deal. Its 1400 years ago. Dont get me wrong, Im not complaining. Its better that they fight each other. Do Shiites and Sunnis have other differences so pronounced that they cant stop killing each other? Honest question.

I still dont get the rift. I know its over the succession of Mo after he died. But other than that, whats the big deal. Its 1400 years ago. Dont get me wrong, Im not complaining. Its better that they fight each other. Do Shiites and Sunnis have other differences so pronounced that they cant stop killing each other? Honest question.

Sorry about the triple post

Gates, from the article:
"And the difficulty in coming to grips with those we may all have underestimated six or eight months ago," he said.

Yep, but the "we all" doesn't include Robert or Hugh, that's for damn sure. It only pertains to the bozos currently in power, those charged to specifically know about these things when undertaking something as big as exporting western democratic nation building to a middle-eastern Islamic country.

The US administration underestimated the difficulty of having Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites agree on key national reconciliation measures...

Meanwhile, professors over at the Defense Dept's National Defense University are publishing indignant articles about how Jihad is an internal struggle and chastising Americans who think Jihad means war for causing trouble with their ignorance and stupidity on Islam.

* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1 *

Does this sound to you like Moslems sitting around on their prayer rugs with their faces scrunched up striving for greater purity?

Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.
--- Allah revealing what he really means by Jihad in Koran 4:95

Elric66,

To each, the other is a non-believer.

The requirement to kill non-believers has no expiration date.

Thanks Lone. I dont know what the differences are that would make think think each is a non believer but we are talking about Islam. No logic required.

So what of any rift, their is no daylight in any of Islam as to the nature or fate of the enemy , all non muslims of any stripe.

So Gates says US underestimated depth of Sunni-Shiite divisions...

In other words, we overestimated their ability to live within a civilized capacity.

Elric66-

The Shi'ites think that they are the true spiritual heirs to Islam because of their superior bloodline.

The Sunnis think it should go to them for their superior understanding.

Like the generational court case in Dickens, it only ends when all are destroyed.

If Islam had been specifically devised to infect and destroy humanity, it couldn't have evolved a more perfect mechanism.

Weaken the mind, robotize the flesh, have contempt for half of the species, suppress creativity.

I smell viral entropy.

Thanks profit. That makes sense in an Islamic way of thinking. I wish both sides success in their interIslamic war.

"Begs the question whether Muslims overestimate Islam's ability to create a unified caliphate."
Posted by: yadayada August 2, 2007 1:06 PM

- - - - - -

Well of course Islam can't/won't create a "unified caliphate". I'm sure all the weak-minded mullahs know it. BUT - they're willing to work together to establish their Islamic World Order. Once the rest of the world is subdued, THEN the zillion-plus factions can slug it out until the strongest warlord wins.

The powers that be in Washington will consider many things respecting the Middle East and Islam, but will they ever consider the possibility that Muslims making permanent peace with one another and with all of us unbelievers is never, and I mean never, going to happen? I very much doubt it. And yet permanent war by Muslims against fellow Muslims, as well as against non-Muslims, is easily the most likely scenario to unfold as mankind drifts into the future burdened most everywhere by Mohammed's deluded followers.

A blue thumb doesn't make a democracy.

The moment the US administration accepted the sharia-based BS and the witches brew the Muhammedans were concocting we all knew this thing was lost. The same goes for Afghanistan.

Get the hell out, let them kill each other, bomb them when they make mischief and be done with it!

'professors over at the Defense Dept's National Defense University are publishing indignant articles...'

it sounds like they are getting some monies from our 'friends' - the saudis.

"I dont know what the differences are that would make think think each is a non believer but we are talking about Islam. No logic required."
Posted by: Elric66 August 2, 2007 2:08 PM

- - - - -

They're probably not thinking each other's faction is "non-believers"; I assume each thinks the other is "insufficiently Muslim". Doesn't really matter a lot, it's about the power and prestige of being the truest of the true believers and getting the fear, respect, and taxes of those billions of faithful Muslims.

Interesting link regarding taxes (khums) for Shi'ites:
http://www.al-islam.org/beliefs/practices/khums.html#3
Note that a portion is reserved for the Mahdi (who is currently hiding in a well???) so the imams get to spend it as they believe the Mahdi would approve. Sure.

I especially like the quote "But, contrary to capitalism, Islam has limited the means of acquiring wealth to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth in a minor quarter of the society". And "Islam also wants to prevent the excessive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few people so the society may not fall into two classes: one is overstuffing, while the other is starving. The chance of such a situation is very real. A look at one of the richest nation in the world, the United States of America, and its problem of the poor, hungry and homeless people will bear us out." As we well know, all Muslim countries share their wealth throughout their societies; the rich and vibrant middle class is legendary throughout the Middle East... =:snicker!:=

Shiite and Sunnis reconciliation to build George "ROP" Bush's rule of law, respect for individual rights, democracy, blah, blah blah in Iraq, as the new York City cab driver said, you can't get there from here.

One might as well try to build a Starship out of mud and straw.

'Well of course Islam can't/won't create a "unified caliphate". I'm sure all the weak-minded mullahs know it.'

I don't think they do know it. They follow islam so blindly, I think they actually believe all the crud the koran, hadiths and surrahs tell them. They don't question anything - because mohammed told them not to do that.

And this is why we have such a hard time fathoming all of this. We can't believe that they are so robotic. They do not even know how to compromise, unless it is in the koran on what to do (eg: allowing infidels to reside among them). If mohammed didn't tell them to let them be dhimmi, they would have slaughtered them right off. Instead they do it slowly if the dhimmi don't blindly follow sharia law. And even then muslims can kill dhimmi if they feel slighted in any way.

Look at peace agreements with muslims - they follow mohammed's teachings there too.

If during history there appears to be lulls, or what we might want to term 'peace', with muslims I do believe it is also due to mohammed's teachings - if the muslim's numbers are not sufficient in numbers, or they are not armed sufficiently - they will appear peaceful while they wait for the right time. They are eternally patient. We think a war should have a start, a finish, and a cleanup. They look at it as dar al harb vs dar al islam. Basically, if the land isn't muslim - then they are at war. And we think of a war as always fighting, etc while they have different tactics - da'wa, taqiyya/kithman, and jihad to name the most prominent. But how many of us are used to something so inocuous as da'wa? We are not even dealing with taqiyya/kithman very well, nor jihad.

The muslims know, have known, that 'turnspeak' muddies the 'waters' also. It has worked for centuries for them.

I could go on. I think that our politicians need a reality check, and they are only open to that during election times. If our population doesn't 'get it' then we can continue to expect the same from the politicians when dealing with muslims here and abroad.

As Jim Henley points out in "Unqualified Offerings":

So. To keep score. The United States is supporting: the Shia government, which funnels money and arms to Shia militias, death squads, and insurgent/terrorist groups; the Sunni opposition, which funnels money and arms to the Sunni insurgency; the Sunni insurgency directly, so that they will combat the Shia militias as well as al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group of Sunni terrorists supposedly supported by Shia Iran; the Saudis, who fund Sunni insurgents as well--almost surely--as Sunni terrorist groups; the Iraqi Kurds, who have their sights set on an independent nation that includes a de-Arabized Kirkuk; and the Turks, who have their sights set on never, ever seeing an independent Kurdish entity anywhere, anyhow, anyway, ever, amen.

To which Brian Doherty at Reason's Hit and Run notes:

Ah, well, what are you gonna do? Those people in the Middle East aren't going to be killing themselves! Well, maybe, but it's all a lot more efficient when the U.S. gets involved.

(http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121735.html)

sorry off topic. But I think this deserves everyon'es attention. Please spread the word.

Pro-Ayatollah Disinformation and Manipulation Campaign by Washington Think Tankers

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/08/pro-ayatollah-disinformation-and.html

sorry off topic. But I think this deserves everyon'es attention. Please spread the word.

Pro-Ayatollah Disinformation and Manipulation Campaign by Washington Think Tankers

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/08/pro-ayatollah-disinformation-and.html

Thanks profit. That makes sense in an Islamic way of thinking. I wish both sides success in their interIslamic war.
Posted by: Elric66 [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 2, 2007 2:52 PM

But which side gets to keep all of the virgins?

serendip, take a look at that guy's name in your website - Dr. Takeyah.

Is that pronounced the same as taqiyya while just mispelling it so we don't recognize it for what it is - Dr. lies!

One thing USA and the allied Governments who are in Iraq, trying to set some kind of democracy are very much mistaken, no way you can teach them the democratic ways of government, because it is all against the teachings of Mohammad/Islam. End of the day West is going to loose Billions of Dollars and achieve very little. In my opinion let the Iraqis sought their own problems, even if they wish to kill each other, that is the only way know.

One thing USA and the allied Governments who are in Iraq, trying to set some kind of democracy are very much mistaken, no way you can teach them the democratic ways of government, because it is all against the teachings of Mohammad/Islam. End of the day West is going to loose Billions of Dollars and achieve very little. In my opinion let the Iraqis sought their own problems, even if they wish to kill each other, that is the only way know.

Just like that huh? Just never 'understood' Islam. After all, Mr. Gates, it's just another religion? I find the WILLFUL ignorance of this Administration about Islam disgusting and unforgivable.

John Sobieski-

You'd have thought the military and political analysts would have hired to most sober and critical thinkers on the subject to brief them.

(The names Spencer & Fitzgerald somehow come to mind.)

Not just the Gladhanders and Pollyannas.

Guess we paid for the pretense of work, and no real work.

No shit, and there was I thinking everything had gone smoothly.
Of course they underestimated a lot of other things. The anarchy, the mass theft, the insurgency, the rival criminal, religious and ideological factions.
The bordering states sending in fighters, etc etc etc.
What a mess, sigh.

Taqyiya in Arabic means basically lies. But in Persian, it means two things:

تکیه = Emphasis, Accent or leaning.

Many words in Persian might look the same as far as the spelling goes but the pronounciation and meanings are very different. But I prefer the Arabic version for the IRI's chief lobbyist.;)

Sorry, off topic: Today as part of the coverage of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, one of the reporters said that there is a government report that estimates that there are hundreds of bridges across the country that need repairs, and it will cost $20Billion to fix them all. She seemed shocked at the cost.

We are currently spending $1Billion per month on the Iraqi Democracy Project. If instead that money was spent here at home, at that rate, it would take less than two years to fix every bridge in the U.S. We've been in Iraq for five years.

It just begins to make it more understandable what the effects of our generosity in Iraq have been for us, and makes it easier to question what we have gotten in return for our investment over there.

We are fixing the bridges over there so we can't afford to fix the bridges over here.

This & future administrations could in theory learn from this big goof. they should sever ties to those advisers/analysts who failed utterly to foresee a sunni/shiite conflict in the wake of saddam's toppling, and bring into the inner circle others who, from a superior understanding of islam and the Middle East, saw this coming years ago. Hmmm, I wonder who those other analysts might be. Unfortunately, in the end I don't think the administration will learn a damn thing from this colossal mistake.

OT - Glasgow Airport 'would-be' bomber dead (clue: the crispier one of the two). Alahu Akbar.

They underestimated the divisions because they think like Christians who desire unity. Even many secularist and atheists are the children of Christians and still have a Christian thinking legacy when it comes to human relationships.

Islamic narratives produce a different way of thinking about unity and especially about the human dignity of "the other" or "the stranger". Islam does not have the same level of correctives which help to mitigate Jewish and Christian violence. Sure we Christians have violence however our narrative always challenges us to love our enemies. In Islam there are rules for the enemy but no love. Without the love, their violence descends into the barbarism we've seen throughout their history and especially today in Iraq.

It is time to pull out of Iraq. The Muslims have chosen tribalism and death instead of freedom and life. I really feel for the Christians and other non-Muslims, we must really make an attempt to get them out.

Special_Guest;

Good illustration. But I think it is even better than you suggest. $800 billion over five years averages out to over $13 billion per month. That would mean that six weeks of Iraq operations would fund the bridge repairs.

Then again, we incur $20 billion in unfunded social liabilities every three days. But that’s a completely different issue. We'll just have to get over that problem.

Gates says US underestimated depth of Sunni-Shiite divisions

What was it in 1979? Didn't we then overestimate the depth of division between Sunni and Shiite? Khomeini took over Iran and we heard that the Sunnis were our friends and that they were enemies of the Shia and that they were mainstream while the Shia were the radicals.

The two have had no trouble working together against the West, though. Sure they always get back to their infighting but so did we after 9/11. Didn't it do your heart good to see Syria and Iran helping the Iraqi Sunnis resist US "occupation"? Once they figure out this pesky thing called democracy, the dream of the caliphate may yet be realized. And why shouldn't it? We're in the process of giving or selling them anything and everything they need to accomplish the task. Iraqi Shia, Saudi Sunni, the US arms bazaar is open for business. We don't even mind if you turn around and sell some of it to Iran, as long as it's all in the cause of peace.

All that's left is to outsource some American jobs to Iraq. Too bad it's not Congress.

(BARF)

Gates says US underestimated depth of Sunni-Shiite divisions

Well, geez, duh, ya think? I'm no towering intellect, but the stuff I've learned about Islam in the last year or so, well, let's just say anyone posting here could turn this situation around better than any of the 100%UVA/UBVshade-wearing bats slathered in SPF 60 lotion running our nations over the cliff due to pc-induced insanity. I mean, we all want the same thing, right? Peace, love, harmony all the good stuff.

I'm going out on a limb here about the bridge disaster in Minnesota. Minnesota is a Mohammedan mecca, been so for years, right? Check out the names of all the people involved in building, planning, maintaining the infrasctructure in the state. Would anyone dare, if Mohammedan names came up again and again when it came to inspections, planners, project managers, etc., to dig deep and then deeper? I believe it's perfectly okay to be paranoid about this stuff. They want us dead. All's fair in love and war, aint' it?

Sunni, Shites, Kurds, they are all the same from my point of view. muslims kill each other faster than the western military. story from Israel's IDF, they witnessed Egyptian military killing muslim Sudanese with their bare hands and throwing rocks on four poor souls. l am sure those Sudanese were Sunni muslims, but oh wrong colour.. so ineffect muslims are their own worst enemies. maybe hooper should look at muslims creating their own genocide.

Hmmm wonder why nobody else ever thought that Mr. gates? Now we see why he got the job.

Good news people,they are starting to think in a different corner inside the box. A couple of more corners to go,then a long gnaw and whamo.....they will then be thinking outside the box.

Nothing like being on top of things.You could build a little more gov. too. A few more comittees and groups.Dole out some more "please be my friend and behave money."

It should all work out A-okay.

Don't worry people soon they will be able to figure out what we are doing wrong to provoke the scourage.

Hi CAIR how are you? Hard day at the office defending the First Amendment all day?It's tough work if you can get it.

Elric66,

Shiites believe that Ali, Muhammad's son-in-law (and cousin) and the third Caliph, was designated the successor to Muhammad -- by Muhammad. The Shiites revere Ali. In fact, the Shiites have their own set of Hadith collections (recall that the hadith -- literally meaning "report" or "narrative" -- are the collected traditions of Muhammad.) One Hadith is a collection of sayings by Ali.

The Sunnis (the vast majority of Muslims -- approx. 80 percent) don't believe this and follow Abu Bakr and Umar (both of whom disbelieved the claim that Ali was Mo's designated successor). The Shiites are claiming a blood link (through inheritance) to Mo. The Sunnis do not believe inheritance was the important factor.

Basically, that forms the basis of the division. But things are actually much worse. This has to do with politics. The Shiite feel themselves to be an oppressed peoples (typically they have lived under Sunni rule and domination and frequently have been badly mistreated by their Sunni "brethren" -- there is a great deal of festering hostility. Under Saddam, recall the Shiite were not allowed to go on any religious pilgrimage, visit shrines, etc. they were suppressed religiously under Saddam. Shiites in other areas/countries also feel that they have been oppressed.)

Also, note that the "Mahdi" business is a small sect within the Shiites. When Khomeini came to power in Iran he made sure that the Mahdi's were kept on the political side-lines. Now, however, with Ahmadinejad, President of Iran (who is a "Twelver"), the Mahdi business is gaining political clout (those Shiites who disapprove of the "Twelvers" and the Twelvers' messianic notions, aren't terribly happy with Ahmadinejad).

More details about much of this you can access through www.memri.org (search for Sunni/Shiite).

YES, i agree, killers is what they are or tend to be -- but, ask yourselves, what makes them this way? Is it (1) the climate? (2) politics? (3) genetics? or, (4) THEIR RELIGION WHICH SAYS MURDER AND SLAVERY AND REVENGE ARE GOOD ! ! Any one besides me willing to say that it is strictly because of an anti-human and psychopathic RELIGION? No? I didn't think so: So, can you guess why we are and will lose to these savages?

"We are fixing the bridges over there so we can't afford to fix the bridges over here."
-- from "special guest" above

I like this.

This is a variant on the famous phrase, the one that General Lynch, doing a fairly good impression of George C. Scott as General Jack D. Ripper in "Dr. Strangelove," used not once but twice, in rapid succession, in an interview broadcast today on NPR. Twice he said "I'd rather ben fighting them over here so that we don't have to fight them back home." The second time he added, because the interviewer was English, "so we don't have to fight them back home, or in England."

The same interviewer asked the troops what they thought. Only one, out of all the soldiers queried, thought remaining in Iraq made sense. Perhaps it is General Lynch, with all his confident talk about "battle space," and his complete incomprehension of the world-wide dimensions of the Jihad, or how the ethnic and sectarian fissures in Iraq just might, if left to fester without Americans trying to set things right, do far more to divide and demoralize and thereby weaken the Camp of Islam, not only in Iraq but in many other places, than anything that General Lynch could do in his "battle space."

He did not impress.

But "special guest"'s witticism does impress.

Another variant on the phrase comes to mind:

"Let's let them fight over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

That's the one that I hope not only the soldiers, but also those who order them around, our disgracefully ill-infomred and terminally uncomprehending (about Islam, its tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics) taking-a-leadership role "leaders" -- including the unimaginative and far-too-dutiful General Lynch -- will find out about, and see the wisdom of, at long last.

Nothing pisses me off more than someone who leave out half the data, which only serves the enemy.

We didn't underestimate the divisions...we underestimated foreign involvement (read that as INVASION by enemies), which inflamed those divisions, which is a whole different take.
Nobody disputes the sectarian divisions, which are obvious, but with the WHOLE story (which gates completely omitted-a sign of clear and unmistakable incompetance, unless it was deliberate) it would prove FAR less than what it is now.

This is what happens when some clown like gates (coined as "the little pr*ck" by my former bosses- because he EARNED it) tells only one-half the story, which makes his take into suspect at best.

If he admitted the fact that 90% of the incident orchestrators and participants weren't even iraqi, but foreign, it wouldn't have anywhere near the impact it has, and would force a very different picture, a far different scenario, not to mention accuracy, which reality is based on, and this one-sided, half-story sham has proven to be...and nobody's calling him on it.

If you're going to make a call, tell the entire thing...not just one-sided, which only serves the enemy, both from without...and from within.

He left out a critical factor, which he should be taken to task for, in the strongest possible sense.

"We are fixing the bridges over there so we can't afford to fix the bridges over here."

Posted by: special_guest

Hmmm.

"I stood in Venice, on the Bridge of Sighs,
A palace and a prison on each hand."

(Byron?).

Perhaps, of course, trying to force the building of bridges between Sunni and Shia, especially in Iraq, may be just a 'bridge too far' (to quote Lt. Gen. Frederick Browning - and the famous quotationally eponymous film).

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me
All the lonely feelings and the burning memories
Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door
Burning bridges lost forevermore

- Kelly's Heroes

"We are fixing the bridges over there so we can't afford to fix the bridges over here."

special_guest is indeed, THE MAN, with that offering. Well done, Sir.

It is true that reconciling Iraqi Sunni and Shiites is a mammouth undertaking for any governmeent, especially secular western ones such as the U.S. and Great Britian.

The ethnic, cultual, and theological divide between the Sunnis and Shiites should have been calculated and weighed more seriously before the U.S. decided to invade Iraq.

Where were the thinkers and intellectuals in the Bush adminstration?

Now to the present with a new question.

Does America have the patience, political clout, and willingness to fund the military effort to work out some of the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites when there is very little payback for America except for taking comfort that America is keeping Al Qaeda at bay by fighting them in Iraq?

I doubt it, especially when Americans are beginning to discover how much money is needed to maintain its own infastructure (bridges included) which is getting older and is sorely needs lots of federal American dollars.

I predict that the anti-war Democrats will recognize this fact and use it as a means to convince ordinary Americans that the Iraqi war surge is futile and a waste of money for America.

Hugh said

Let's let them fight over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

Yeah, okay, I've got a wit, but you've got a plan to save our troops' lives, save our economy, and strike a major blow against the jihad.

But thanks Hugh. That's one for the scrapbook.

When one does the math on waste of money in other areas, like for us dept of education, the iraq expenditure is pale in comparison to what we get for our money. The huge amount doesn't add up, and goes WAY beyond what would be needed (makes ya wonder where it's really going...to the tune of about FIVE TIMES the waste of the iraq project).

Bottom line...both are a waste, but put in proper context, the argument of iraq expenditures implied as a huge colossal waste is beyond hubris.

In this part of the universe, 80-100 billion is a lot less than 300 billion +, and that's just ONE department. (Same blowhard bean-counters claiming how wasteful Defense department is also are notorious half-storytellers, same reports also say that very same Department of Defense is also the most efficient, which makes one wonder just how bad the others are in comparison...and they ARE WAY WORSE...so let's get off the one-sided selective targeting...unless of course, egg-faces are about to be en vogue)
;-)

It's pitiful stuff really.

And another "No shit Sherlock" moment.

U.S. military sees 'marked and increasing Iranian influence' among extremists in Iraq

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/02/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-US-General.php

Well who'd have thought that?

Sad to say, it IS pitiful...exhibit A
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/murtha-nabs-150m-pork-2007-08-03.html

But back to topic...yes, iran has been involved since the invasion began, but the sheeple would never have thought that from the MSM-they come off as irans involvement didn't start until recently, provided they even bother to report it at all, which most don't...and their allies in elected office have yet to make that fact a big deal like it should be.
It, too, would change the entire equation.

My translation of "underestimated the difficulty" is "underestimated the depravity" of Islam whether it be shia islam or sunnite islam! Islam is the source of all the world's misfortune and allah knows (this) best!

Now THAT's spot on...
...only keep in mind still, nearly all of those incidents were done by that very same 90% of whom aren't even iraqis, but from other islamist countries who created the difficulty by getting involved.
They knew that if they didn't fight to protect their twisted sick power & control racket, the repercussions spilling over to other islamist states would have been so profound (others would've said "Hey! I want that here, too!, and their leaders know it, too) that the entire imams power & control racket they've had for over 1,300 years, calling into account their entire faith-base (especially that same depravity), & would risk suffering catastrophic social collapse, and go the same way the Mayans did, when they found out their man-god was fake, & they promptly said "screw this" & left town. lol

Hugh
Maybe you are right why should we care about Europe Let them defend themselfs.

http://www.beecy.net/frank/

Yea let Iran have and control all the oil??

Oh yea Gates is wrong.

More islamic terrorist dead today!

Hope Bush fires Gates!

OH yea MPLS feel for you but you did elect a mulsum for your congressman?

Maybe God does have a sence of humor?

Anyone shocked by these developments, like Gates is, should be fired.

http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-sandler

Joseph Sandler is a Washington, D.C. attorney who served as in-house general counsel for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from 1993 to 1998 and continues to serve in that role through his law firm, Sandler Reiff & Young PC in Washington DC.
Sandler was born in 1953 in Baltimore MD, graduated from Harvard College (1975 scl) and Harvard Law School (1978 cl). He has served as counsel for the 1996, 2000 and 2004 Democratic National Conventions; for the Democratic Governors Association; and through his law firm, for numerous Democratic state party committees and Democratic and progressive advocacy groups, PACs and candiddates.
During Sandler's tenure at the DNC, he defended several prominent Democrats and Democratic groups during controversies over alleged improprieties in fundraising and cooperation with 527 groups

"Anyone shocked by these developments, like Gates is, should be fired."
-- from a posting above

But Gates is now at least admitting something that neither Bush (who, hearing about Sunnis and Shi'a, is reported to have said "I thought they were all Muslims"), nor Rice (who said "they [the Sunnis and Shi'a of Iraq] will just have to get over it") nor Wolfowitz (who said that "Iraq has no history of ethnic [he meant "sectarian"] conflict, nor others in this Administration, and a great many, both loyalists and enemies, outside it, have admitted: that they simply do not know much about Iraq (after $880 billion has been spent or committed to that war which is in its fifth year; after more than four years of war and six years after the attacks of 9/11/2001) and very little about Islam. And they certainly have proven unequal to the task of recognizing how the war in Iraq could weaken the Camp of Islam, if only we analyzeed things correctly. It amazes me still how little attention has been paid to the most obvious -- or what should be -- the most obvious things.

But those who are Bush loyalists won't hear of it. And those who attack the war do so, in the main, for all the wrong reasons -- and the discussion is always over why we "can win" or "can't win" with the definition of "winning" such as it is, being exactly the wrong one.

You may rub your eyes in disbelief. But don't. We do not have government, or commentary on government, by the well-prepared. We have something else.

True, sad to say...at the risk of a sound bite, for lack of a better take...

The Bush bunch have a f**ked up plan (went from the frying pan Rumsfeld, directly into the fire Gates),
the leftist detractors don't even have a plan at all (some of which deny we're even threatened),
leaving the rest of us wondering if anyone is up there that DOESN'T have their heads anally inserted.

Reminds me of Bernard Godlberg's book:
"Crazies to the left of me, wimps to the right."
God help us all.
lol

So when Sunnis and Shi'a kill each other, who gets to keep the 72 virgins?

Is is considered a draw? 36 to each side? :-)

So when Sunnis and Shi'a kill each other, who gets to keep the 72 virgins?

Is is considered a draw? 36 to each side? :-)

So when Sunnis and Shi'a kill each other, who gets to keep the 72 virgins?

Is is considered a draw? 36 to each side? :-)

Hmmm...probably depends on the tax man...they own enough souls as it is-and are THE experts at screwing people with impunity...lol