| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Sunni-Shi'ite Jihad Update from AFP: "Sixty-one killed as Iraq prepares to take charge of military"
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Insurgents killed at least 61 Iraqis, including 14 in a car bomb attack on a popular Baghdad market, as the government prepared to take full command of its own military.
At least 43 were killed when a series of seven rocket and bomb attacks were launched almost simultaneously against Shiite and Christian districts of Baghdad shortly before the nightly curfew, security officials said.
A car bomb went off in the southern neighbourhood of Al-Amin, killing 14 people and wounding 38, including six women, a medic at Al-Kindi hospital said.
Sunni extremists often target markets to kill civilians who venture out to buy household goods before the dusk-to-dawn curfew begins.
Six more explosive devices, including rockets, detonated in three areas, of which two were in the Shiite bastion of Sadr City, the security official said. At least 29 people were killed in these attacks.
Earlier in the day, another 18 people were killed in a string of attacks, including nine in the restive Diyala province, as the war-torn country's latest round of bloodletting claimed more than 250 lives in five chaotic days.
A British diplomatic convoy was hit by a roadside bomb in Baghdad's upscale Mansur district but no one on board was hurt, embassy officials said.
Even as the brutal violence stretched hard-pressed security forces, Iraq prepared to activate a joint military headquarters to command Iraq's navy, air force and 10 army divisions, totaling 115,000 troops.
A statement from the defence ministry said military leaders would meet their US and coalition counterparts Saturday to announce an agreement "on the control of strategic and combat operations."
US military officials confirmed that the announcement would mark the creation of a joint headquarters.
Iraq's armed forces are currently coordinated by US headquarters under the command of General George Casey, the head of US-led coalition troops in Iraq, who said Wednesday it would be at least a year until US troops could leave.
Will officials be saying that next year, too?
Posted by Marisol at August 31, 2006 7:47 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Muslims have been killing each other since Mo's nephew Ali took over. MOM (Muslim On Muslim) violence. Nothing new.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 31, 2006 7:52 PM
mmmmmmmm I wonder who could be orchestrating all these attacks?
And please dont tell me Muslims and Iran, everyone knows Islam is the RoP.
Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 8:05 PM
You mean "The Religion of Pieces"
What a novel idea....just blow everyone else up and things will be hunky dory. Sick bastards.
at August 31, 2006 8:25 PM
Last Friday's prayers must have been real special. They been at it the whole week. I read news about 22 tortured bodies thrown out of a mosque, car bombs, bus bombs, cycle bombs, rocket attacks, gunmen, the works. Wonder what this Friday prayers are going to be like.
Meanwhile, in Thailand,
"Bombs hit 22 banks in Thailand"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-2337699,00.html
Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 31, 2006 8:47 PM
In a speech this past week in Arkansas delivered to supporters of Jim Corker, running for the Senate, President Bush clarified the nature of the enemy that the United States faces. This is how he named, this is how he described, that enemy:
“We face an enemy that has an ideology. They believe things. The best way to describe their ideology is to relate to you the fact that they think the opposite of the way we think.”
That should clear up any confusion.
"They believe things."
at August 31, 2006 9:08 PM
Mr Hugh, at one time in America this President could say, these people whom believe that islam is the only religion are wrong and we will destroy them and their ilk. He would have had all Americans pulling for him,white,black,brown,yellow. It didn't matter you were an American and you pulled for your country, now its not what you can do for you country. But what this country owes to all people, wheather you live here or not.
Posted by: AMartinez at August 31, 2006 9:22 PM
Is this the birth of a nation, or the after-birth of a wrethed people?
Posted by: n.a. palm at August 31, 2006 9:42 PM
"They believe things." ??????
I have been reading the postings/comments for several months now. It's been an enlightening experience to say the least.
I just have to comment on President Bush's statements to the American Legion. My 12 year old grandson wouldn't accept the above statement.
Aliens, little green men, the earth is flat???
I'm so disappointed in Bush, everytime he opens his mouth it gets worse.
Posted by: backwoodsgranny at August 31, 2006 9:47 PM
I’m sure that the West will get blamed for the killings and for the ‘loss of life’. Under the West’s brutal occupation with its food and medical handouts, the Iraqi birthrate averaged 4.2 children per female, yielding a growth rate of 2.66%, or about 700,000 persons per year. While Iraq’s birth rate is 4.2 children per female, Iran’s has been 1.8.
Democracy Now bemoans 100,000 ‘civilians’ killed over three years.
Iraq’s net population has jumped since the invasion by a couple of million.
Posted by: limes at August 31, 2006 11:11 PM
That should clear up any confusion.
"They believe things."
Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2006 09:08 PM
LOL :->
Posted by: km at August 31, 2006 11:51 PM
Assuming the AFP report is correct, 61 Iraqis were murdered by terrorists today. That's tragic.
Meanwhile, according to the law of averages, 93 terrorists and "insurgents" were killed on the same day. 93 will be killed on average tomorrow--and the day after that--and the day after that--and so on and so forth, until a new average is taken for the total time elapsed since the monstrous Hussein regime was deposed by the coalition. That isn't tragic.
"General George Casey, the head of US-led coalition troops in Iraq, who said Wednesday it would be at least a year until US troops could leave."
"Will officials be saying that next year, too?"
Probably not.
Of course, no US troops were injured in the blast, so the only reason to mention them is to take a cheap shot at the Coalition's mission in Iraq. How many Iraqi citizens would be killed each day if the Coalition were to cut and run? 61? More? Who can say. What can be said with certainty, is that it would be a hell of a lot more than are being killed now.
If the mass murdering Hussein hadn't been overthrown, the death toll would be far higher than it is now, and there would be no democratic government. Every government official (Saddam crony,) would still have his own private, shop worn, rape room.
By any standard of decency, Iraq is better off now than it was under Hussein. Who misses Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic sons? None of the writers at this site, I'm sure.
America now has a staging ground for the inevitable confrontation with Iran--a country that the writers at this site believe is a grave threat. The staging ground in Afghanistan is useful, but the mountainous terrain severely limits its effectiveness. The staging ground in Turkmenistan is likewise problematic, as is the Persian Gulf when it comes to land assaults.
Try to keep things in proportion, Marisol.
at September 1, 2006 12:19 AM
The speach Bush gave at the A.L. described the enemy, and then ended with how it was a "warpped" version of islam. Still have a ways to go me thinks.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 1, 2006 12:26 AM
Hugh:
Did you watch the President's entire speech? Did you listen to it, or read the transcript? If you did, there's no excuse for cherry picking that incomplete comment. His overall message was crystal clear, as was the one you reproduced in part. There were plenty of quotes that you couldn't possibly disagree with. Trying to characterize (caricature,) his entire speech with that particular passage is disingenuous.
If you have a problem with his Middle Eastern policies, try addressing them honestly. I can't believe you thought you could slip that one by.
What did you think of his statements about Iran and its nuclear ambitions? He unequivocally said he would not allow them to be realized. Did you disagree with those too? I can post those here if you missed them, or chose to disregard them out of partisan spite or irrational hatred.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 12:33 AM
P.S. Hugh:
Try to answer my brief comment with a brief reply. Novel length comments are tedious.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 12:37 AM
When I answer someone, I answer at the length I deem appropriate.
Posted by: Hugh at September 1, 2006 12:47 AM
i am waiting for a novel answer.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 1, 2006 12:56 AM
From some poster or other (above):
"Try to keep things in proportion, Marisol.
"Try to answer my brief comment with a brief reply. Novel length comments are tedious.
Excuse me, just who's site is this? Since when did posters at this site - a privilege, not a right - start ordering the staff at JW/DW around?
Personally, I happen to enjoy Hugh's extended comments. I learn a lot from them and I have the humility and the grace to admit that. His comments on the Sunni/Shia divide are extremely useful, trenchant and relevant to the difficulties which we are presently encountering in Iraq. I happen to agree with Hugh that we should withdraw and let battle commence because it would be in our best interests. However, Hugh does not need such an amateur hand as mine to defend him. He is more than capable of standing up to this idiot poster by himself.
Who on earth would be so arrogant as to think that what he/she wanted had to be? Ah, I have just spotted whom. The Bargholz; I might have known!
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 1, 2006 12:58 AM
That should clear up any confusion.
"They believe things."
Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2006 09:08 PM
Dont beleive Hugh was saying that was all he said,but instead of him stateing what those "things"are(islam will rule,us infidels will die....)our president just said""They believe things."idiot, tell us what those things are,be a man stand up for the country you swore to protect,and tell it like it is.Sure we got more idiots like him,who cant handle the truth,in this country.But,most are just waiting for the truth to be told.
Posted by: Patriot8 at September 1, 2006 12:59 AM
"When I answer someone, I answer at the length I deem appropriate.
Posted by: Hugh"
And so. He has his answer. Neat!
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 1, 2006 1:03 AM
We all know Hugh is anti Bush, and by "cherry picking" part of his speech today shows how much contempt he does have towards Bush. l heard parts of Bush's speech today and it was uplifting, something that some people need to realize will aid in making changes. l dont think "politician" would please Hugh, unless you resurect Churchill, but then l do not think Churchill would give a rat's ass for global warming, lol..
one point to ponder is that "Bush" does realize some part of islam is the "enemy", where when you look over the ailes to the Democrats, they cannot see any enemies, except for pheraps the "Israelis". You have dimwits Kerry, Algore, Carter, need l say more? so perhaps Bush is not that bad anymore. another point to ponder who hates Bush more, the Democrats, or Bin Laden and his cohorts?
at September 1, 2006 1:23 AM
ZenaWarriorPrincess/
Hmmm. Several very good points but I wouldn't be so sure that Hugh is totally against President Bush. He is far more rational than that and will give credit where credit is due, if any credit is due of course.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 1, 2006 1:26 AM
l ommitted the word "any" politician would please Hugh.
necessitasnonhabetlegem it seems you don not enjoy
debate, it makes interesting reading, you need to see it as positive. l dont see it as an attack by
Jeff Bargholz, he is just asking for information to his questions, and he does give out logical answers as well to defend his positions. you might not like it, but that is how you develop a position on any issue. Hugh's posts are informative and l have learned much from him, but no one is perfect. l am not a "yes" person and for that l cannot post on the
other part of list which l believe belongs to Hugh.
We are all on the same side of this "World War", and we need to find ways to attack Islam, and even the smallest contributions will help. l have copied literature and dropped them at airports, lol.. and continue to send JW information to various radio talk stations, and maybe in a very small way it will help. it does add up.
at September 1, 2006 1:35 AM
l never said Bush was perfect, but some points you raised are incorrect.. Bush had no say of when the saudis would leave after nine eleven, it was done under the okay from Richard Clarke as stated in his book.\
Bush Sr.holdings in the carlisle group was mistated, and there are facts to show he had little part if any with the Saudi. l have a fact page that shows how Michael Moore's facts were wrong, and outright lies.
as far as the illegal aliens, l agree with you that Bush is not right with his part. l think that Tom Tancredo is right on track, and is pain in the butt for the GOP. but look at the alternative, Kerry, Clinton, Algore, Carter, me thinks Bush looks much better.
at September 1, 2006 2:24 AM
Mr. Bargholz --
The suggestion that I meant to take a "cheap shot at the Coalition's mission in Iraq" is simply not accurate.
The headline of the article from AFP was "Sixty-one killed as Iraq prepares to take charge of military." I posted it because it highlights the dissonance between the sectarian tensions, which have gotten decidedly worse over the past few months, and the US-led efforts to assemble a unified Iraqi military.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I find implicit in your suggestion the sense that I am somehow less appreciative of the sacrifices of US and allied troops than if I did not think the mission was being mishandled as a war waged by politicians who won't call jihad for what it is. That insinuation certainly would be a "cheap shot."
And for that matter, I am indeed glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power; my opinions on the conduct of the war following his ouster do not mean I opposed action against his regime.
Posted by: MarisolJW at September 1, 2006 2:40 AM
Hugh:
What you deem appropriate is what I'm critical of.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 3:32 AM
ZenaWarriorPrincess:
"l do not think Churchill would give a rat's ass for global warming, lol."
You know what? I DID laugh out loud when I read that comment.
at September 1, 2006 3:46 AM
Jeff
Are you opposed to an Iraqi civil war? You know, Mohammedan killing Mohammedan? Hizbullah fighters coming in to fight Ba'athists, Saudi or Egyptian fighters coming in to battle Moqtada al Sadr, Syrian Ikhwan fighters coming in to combat other Shi'ite militias?
If not, then as long as US troops are there, all these forces are going to be focussed on attacking them. Once there are no Infidels there, all these forces will slaughter each other. Which would be good news.
If yes, why? Why is it in our (Infidel) interest to see an united Iraq? Why is it not in our interest to see a civil war - one that preferrably spreads to all the neighboring countries?
I supported the invasion of Iraq, but would have preferred US troops to simply destroy their military and topple the regime. I'd have preferred to have seen that in Iran and Syria as well. But not followed by any occupation. In Syria, let Ikhwan and Alawites go at each other. In Iran, let there be a civil war between Farsis on one hand, and Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis and Shia Arabs. Let there be a revolt in Shia Bahrein against Sunni royalty. Let the Shia provinces in Saudi Arabia revolt, and a civil war there ensue. Why would all these be bad? Was the 1980's Iran-Iraq war a bad thing?
Bush will get back my support when he invades Iran, and plainly states that the enemy is Islam (not Islamo-fascism, unless you believe Mohammed was an Islamo-fascist).
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 1, 2006 4:00 AM
americaningermany:
You cant rely on Michael Moore for factual information about President Bush.
Yes, his open border policy with Mexico is heinous, but it isn't any different from any other presidential candidate. Congress is even worse than him.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 1, 2006 4:04 AM
Jeff
The House is better, but the Senate is worse...
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 1, 2006 4:25 AM
Marisol:
"I posted it because it HIGHLIGHTS (emphasis mine,) the dissonance between the sectarian tensions, which have gotten decidedly worse over the past few months, and the US-led efforts to assemble a unified Iraqi military."
Why did you highlight the following passage?:
"IT WOULD BE AT LEAST A YEAR UNTIL US TROOPS COULD LEAVE."
Why did you offer the following comment?:
"WILL OFFICIALS BE SAYING THAT NEXT YEAR TOO?"
If those weren't cheap shots, they were a good approximation.
I have no problem pardoning your error.
The sectarian tensions have not gotten worse over the past several months. A quick check of any Iraq "war" casualty report you care to trust will prove that.
I'm not given to innuendo. Everything I wrote is straightforward and heartfelt. I suggested nothing. I don't think you sneer at our troops, I just think you're politically naive.
I'm glad to hear that you condone Hussein's ouster. Criticizing aspects of the Coalition's mission is fine. Making comments that suggest the Coalition should abandon Iraq are not.
at September 1, 2006 4:33 AM
Before proceeding further with the various Bargholz's comments readers on this thread might care to take a look at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012942.php#comments
Just a thought.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at September 1, 2006 5:00 AM
For those of you on this thread interested in freedom and its future in America, please go here:
http://fff.org/comment/ed0901g.asp
Take a look at what it says about interventions, military and others, and the potential for things spinning out of control. The worse you can imagine could happen and it could go one way or the other and even if it goes the way you wish, do you really think that is what you want?
It's time for a reassessment. It's going to be a long war.
Posted by: NativeSon at September 1, 2006 5:43 AM
NavtiveSon l read your link, the article was written by some prof. from a Mich. college,(should be a hint of the appeasement mentality) and the first thing came to mind is that this man is living in the 19th century, its not the same world, and you cannot
have the same decisions as was made back then. the world like it or not is more global, you cannot shut the gates, and hope no one hits you. This proffesor's
equal treatment of Israel and Palestinses is typical
liberal reactions.. like parents to children fighting among each other.. You have to make a judgemental decision, who is the truely democratic country "Israel" and who is the aggresor "Palestinesmuslims). you have to acknoweledge first that you prefer a democratic country such as Israel
to make that judgement.
at September 1, 2006 5:56 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)