| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
From today's Bandar Beacon, aka The Washington Post:
BAGHDAD, April 28 -- U.S. forces killed a local leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and captured another in raids north of Baghdad on Thursday and Friday, dealing a blow to the insurgent organization's leadership in the violent city of Samarra, Iraqi police and U.S. military authorities said.U.S. troops tracked Hamadi al-Takhi al-Nissani, al-Qaeda's "emir" in Samarra, to a safe house north of the city Friday morning, the U.S. military said in a statement. As the soldiers approached the house, Nissani fled and was killed. Two other armed insurgents in the house were also killed, according to the statement.
On Thursday night, U.S. troops also arrested Abdul Qadir Makhool, another al-Qaeda leader in Samarra, and released a police officer who had been kidnapped by the group, Maj. Jamal Samarraie, an officer at the provincial Joint Command Center, said in an interview...
Nissani "was an individual who they had been working to capture and take down for some time," Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said in a telephone interview. "This is a very critical element in halting a lot of the illegal terrorist activity there."...
It's interesting the officer would use the word "illegal" as a modifier for "terrorist activity", implying to westerners there could be legal terror activity, but in the Muslim world the word "illegal" seems to be universally used to denote "wrong" or "immoral" because within Islamic thought these concepts are not separate.
Posted by Rebecca at April 29, 2006 2:25 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Good news. Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind. There should be no question on taking out an “illegal” terrorist. I do hope the rest of them are taken out in short order.
Posted by: THSIMJ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 29, 2006 3:13 PM
A blow? Sounds like alot of hot air to me.The only blow to the Iraq insurgents would be defeat.Not one soldier here and one soldier there.Here an emir there an emir every where an amir.Got come to grips with the size and nature of the threat.The sooner the better.So one less emir ok.But theres ten others popin up,filled with the same crazed Islam as the desesed.So to spin it as a blow is ignorant.And surely exzgerated.None the less hes gone.
Posted by: Rench at April 29, 2006 3:48 PM
Can we declare terrorism "haram" now?
Posted by: Zonka at April 29, 2006 6:29 PM
The plan for OIF avoided a mainstay of Imperial warfare. When conquering a country, always go in with overwheming force and garrison as you go every step of the way to protect and secure your rear and LOCs. Wipe out the oposition fast and ruthlessly, and coopt the rest into the Imperial adminstation of your new possession. Had we done this in the first place most of our forces would be home now firing up the barbies, rather than firing up (over and over again) Ramadhi et al.
The current fubar state of affairs brought to us by our PC concerns at being perceived as big bullies has only prolong the death and destruction of all concerned.
Still not too late to just say basta! take it from the top, move in in force, garrsion the whole country and wipe out the insurgency root, twig and branch. Would also be a nice way to set up for taking out Iran...
Posted by: Elendur at April 29, 2006 6:56 PM
Elendur-
You can't unshoot your wad.
Iraq has "been learned".
Nothing new will be tried there but a brave-faced withdrawal -as the Sunnis and Shiites go to a simmering religious vendetta war for years.
If the Iraqis were a different people, we might still care to 'do our all' for thier hearts and ...whatever is up there, outside of Rote, but their "sectarian" mania is tedious.
Gang wars with God as the ammo.
Let them solve their own theological nightmares.
We can ease out, waving and smiling, as the next threat bubbles over in Mahmoud-land.
We should sent about 25,000 of the hardest troops from Iraq to Aghanistan and get the most diseased masterminds in situ, finally.
The Kurds will merit our help as allies, but the rest of Iraq seems destined for "holy" gangland hits and counter-hits.
Until enough women take enough pillows from enough husbands (for 'one thousand and one nights'?), nothing will change. With a Lysstata tactic, they might be able to renegotiate the situation.
The men seem to like this crap.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 29, 2006 7:24 PM
Somehow "Lysistrata" lost some weight en route to TYPE Key?
(In case you thought it was "Lycanthropy".)
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 29, 2006 7:27 PM
Another 500,000 or 600,000 killed would be a good start.
Posted by: Texican at April 29, 2006 7:49 PM
10,000,000 or 20,000,000 would help a lot more.
Posted by: Texican at April 29, 2006 7:50 PM
The "insurgency" that counts has little to do with Al Qaeda. It has to do with the refusal of the Sunnis to accept the loss of political and economic power that became inevitable once Saddam Hussein was overthrown. They are convinced that they constitute 42% of the population. They are convinced that they represent the truest kind of Muslim, that they desserve to rule, and some even believe that the Shi'a are hardly Muslims at all but, rather, "Rafidite dogs." This will not change. The attitudes and atmospherics of Islam make violence not extrordinary, but ordinary; conspiracy theories and wild rumors, always believable; a desire to extract benefits for oneself, one's familiy, one's tribe, but never for the nation-state; for Muslims, the nation-state matters less than it does for non-Muslims; nothing in the Qur'an or Hadith suggests that there can be loyalty to anything other than Islam. Some may overcome this, and begin to think of themselves as members of this or that state, but such feelins can always be undercut by the tug of Islam.
Nor will the Shi'a forget that they have always been the majority but have always been persecuted, and sometimes murdered, by Sunni-dominated regimes, whether Ba'athist or under the old regime of assorted court plotters and schemes such as Nuri as-Said. How could the Shi'a now relinquish power, when they have been treated so badly, and have been the recipients of most of the blows inflicted by Sunnis? Why would they? If there is some semblance of a pretend-willingness to compromise, it will always end in nothing. The play must go on, in order to persaude the Americans to remain to train the "Iraqi" army and the "Iraqi" police (which for the Shi'a means Shi'a, for the Sunnis means Sunnis, for the Kurds means Kurds), and each group will try to wangle aid, support, military equipment from those Americans. Eventually, however, the whole thing will break down. To believe otherwise is to ignore the nature of the beliefs, attitudes, atmospherics that Islam naturally gives rise to.
This will end in tears. Better to get out as soon as possible, unstuck from the tarbaby, and start to think things through -- beginning with the 1350-year history of Islam that has something unambigulously to teach us. When those who rule us figure out what that unambiguous lesson is, we will all be much less anxious. But so far -- when it comes to policies about the Jihad, or even in talking about the countering of Jihad merely as a matter of a "war on terror," we see again that Texans and non-Texans alike in the White House (and in the Democratic Party too) are All Hat, and No Cattle.
Posted by: Hugh at April 29, 2006 9:53 PM
l listened to Michael Savage the other day.. he said he was not against the war, but the way its being fought.. or not being fought. and after hearing what he had to say l am in complete agreement with him.
US soldiers are fighting with a hand behind their backs.. and if given the okay, the war could be over sooner. Germany's Dresden was bombed to nothing, and much of nothing was not held sacred,we need to allow the military the same means as was given to them in WW2. to pullout premature will give muslims wrong impressions and more confidence over the west. right now the only power they fear is the U.S. particularly George Bush. l would not be surprised if they are hoping the democrats get power to stifle the military, prol. hoping for another Clinton!
at April 29, 2006 10:52 PM
More PC news from the "See-they're-really-not-so-bad-and-are-becoming-more-like-us-department":
Who owns this news service's purse strings....
at April 30, 2006 7:31 AM
The sectarian violence will never cease until Iraq erupts into civil war.
Larry King had the Democratic Senator from California on his lame ass show and he also had a retired Republican Senator debating the Iraq war.
The Republican Senator thought he was being insightful when he said that, "The situation in Iraq will not improve until Sunni and Shiites stand up and start being Iraqis!".
This is typical of politicians failing to understand the Islamic mind. First and foremost, Sunni and Shiites are Muslims. They put Islam first. They will never put Iraq ahead of Allah. This is the fundamental problem with the war effort in Iraq. We forced our secular Western values (freedom, equality...etc...basically everything that Islam is not)into Iraq.
Iraq qill fail not because of the effort on tyhe ground but on a fundamental level where the decision makers failed and continue to fail to understand the Muslim mind.
The sectarian violence will never end.
Bring the troops home slowly but surely.
at April 30, 2006 10:51 AM
we see again that Texans and non-Texans alike in the White House (and in the Democratic Party too) are All Hat, and No Cattle.
Posted by: Hugh at April 29, 2006 09:53 PM
++++++++++++
And no brains.
Posted by: Texican at May 2, 2006 12:14 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)