In the future the Iraqis will blame their civil war on the US-all factions will whine how they would have governed efficiently if only the US had backed them to the exclusion of the others. But then again, Islamania is great at blaming others. Truth be told if there is a civil war in Iraq it will be solely the fault of the Iraqis-the US freed them of the wretched blood Baath oppression so it is up to them to either build a new Iraq or destroy one another. Besides, nobody told the Iraqis to behave like savages in dealing with one another-apparently this came naturally.
Let the US leave Iraq to the Iraqis and whatever happens it will be due to the sole efforts of the Iraqi people. The US provided these people with freedom-it's up to them to decide what they want to do with it.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 19, 2006 9:36 AM

A large, threatening armed force with a Moslem cleric as General. That's about all you need to know about Islam.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 19, 2006 9:37 AM

I would hope we aren't considering the Shiites more dangerous just because our "pals" the Saudi Arabians are Sunni.

That would mean Saudi Arabia has an influence on our policies.

I'd hate to think that.

Posted by: freedomschool at December 19, 2006 9:40 AM

'Unknowingly Brain-washed Christian reporting for duty, Suh!'

... 'what do you mean, there's NO reconstructionist militia? My friend nariz sez there is.... he knows Everything!'

One could have hoped that the Democrats would spread Reyes of knowledge over this situation, but-

Starting to agree: Get out. Let them kill each other off. Let allah sort 'em out.

Posted by: Gary at December 19, 2006 9:41 AM

The fact that Sadr is still alive just goes to show how stupid our military commanders are. He should have been eliminated several years ago and we wouldn't still be dealing with this problem today. Their colossal mistakes and inaction will cause us to be defeated. Abizaid must be replaced. His Harvard education hasn't done much for his military abilities and he doesn't have what it takes to get the job done and get out. Besides, I will never forgive him for siding with that joker Rep. Murtha. I also don't expect much to come from new Defense Secretary Gates either, especially after his public comments regarding Israel having nukes. The whole Administration is full of incompetent dumbasses, one dumbass selecting another dumbass, not getting us anywhere but further down the hole.

Posted by: Bonniea at December 19, 2006 9:42 AM

Apologies to Robert! I am being somewhat contentious this morning.

Merry Christmas to Robert and all here who Celebrate it.

Happy Hannukah to some of the rest.

And forgive me, but I am unfamliar with other Hol(y)days that may be celebrated at this point in time.

Posted by: Gary at December 19, 2006 9:44 AM

I would hope we aren't considering the Shiites more dangerous just because our "pals" the Saudi Arabians are Sunni. That would mean Saudi Arabia has an influence on our policies. I'd hate to think that.
Posted by: freedomschool at December 19, 2006 09:40 AM

I expect you were being facetious here, or at least I hope so.

I agree with Gary or I should say, Gary is "starting" to agree with me....

"Get out. Let them kill each other off. Let allah sort 'em out."
Posted by: Gary at December 19, 2006 09:41 AM

Posted by: awake at December 19, 2006 9:56 AM

If we aren't going to pull out and let them kill each other, then we should just kill Al Sadr (and any of his friends that get in the way). And when a replacement nut pops up, kill him too.

Eventually they will run out of potential leaders willing to be killed for the cause. They don't mind letting their followers die for Allah, but these Imams don't seem to be in too big of a hurry to strap on a vest themselves.

Those nut cases in Iran shoudl be handled the same way.

It seems to have worked for Zarqawi. Look at the new leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a sniviling coward afraid to show his face. Thus non-effective as a leader of fighters.

Posted by: walterc at December 19, 2006 10:00 AM

walterc-

That's what makes their leaders great-getting idiots to kill and die for them while they themselves are safe. And there is no shortage of idiots in the ummah. More hypocrisy, courtesy of the religion of peace.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 19, 2006 10:04 AM

This is a link to a very good article that reverberates alot of our own sentiments here at Jihad Watch.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_Journo15_12-15-06_Q63951F.1cda074.html

Posted by: gaelen at December 19, 2006 10:22 AM

Mohammed was generalissmo and da mouthpiece of Allah. Al-Sadr is simply following the Sunnah here, same as all the rest.

Same as it ever was.

Most of us are simply too busy catching up on the box scores, searching for photos of Brittney's shaved coochie or ordering the iPod Nanos from Amazon.com to be able to connect the dots.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 19, 2006 10:47 AM

What's that? Falwell commands no militia? What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

Only because we (kind of) have rule of law. I sat there and watched the religious right rattle their military swords during the 2000 recount. They don't fool me at all.

Posted by: pneumatikon at December 19, 2006 11:04 AM

Rule of law and separation of powers.
Power concentrated into few hands becomes lethal.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 19, 2006 11:07 AM

At this point, I'm for strapping IEDs on a gigantic herd of swine and letting them run the streets of Baghdad when our troops leave. That ought to keep the peace.

Our generals can just sit back and let their fingers hover over the remote detonators.

Anyone else have any other ideas?

Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at December 19, 2006 11:22 AM

The President told us that this war would not be fought on politics but for me it has become that even more than Vietnam lately.

My feelings have began to change when I see people like anti- American Mutaqh Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army appear to be to be almost off limits. Why is he still there? Why are we afraid to take him and his Mahdi army down? . My feelings began to change when you allow the new seat of Iraq to be filled with the minority sheites who will possibly hook up with people like Mahmoud Amadinejad in the predominate sheite country of Iran. My feelings began to change when you allowed no separation of church and state when it comes to the Islamic religion, and sharia law, which may be the biggest mistake of all.

Winning a war requires that America dictates fully and completely what the policies of that country will be; bar none! And what will be allowed and what will not. There is no doubt in my mind that people like Winston Churchill,General Douglas MacArthur, President Franklin D. Roosevelt would be turning over their graves if they saw the disgusting capitulation and appeasement that has been going on in Iraq today.

Let me ask , who do we expect to raise the white flag of surrender to end this war in Iraq?

The answer is of course no one will because we are fighting against a totalitarian ideology and not against a clearly established uniformed army. The measured approach is failing.

The number of particular military attacks is not the measure of success or failure. The Islamic Totalitarians remain physically intact, spiritually committed, and politically empowered. The Islamic Totalitarian l movement still remains.

A strong offense does not create new enemies; it defeats any existing enemy; this means Mutaqh Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. .

Any capitulation, concessions, or appeasement to this totalitarian enemy continues to embolden them every day because they see it as weakness in what should have been our steadfast resolve to eliminate any threat in the region rather than playing politics with Iraq, we should be calling all the shots 100 Pct there because there is no substitute for full and complete victory without question.

As long as Mutaqh Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army that gets support from the Iranians just like Hezbollah is still left standing we will not win the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Mackie at December 19, 2006 11:25 AM

REMEMBER!!!!!

THE NATURE OF THE ENEMY

Do you remember that Mosque in Najaf where Moqtada al-Sadr was holed up for weeks? Al-Sadr's goons were firing mortars at American troops from inside that Mosque .. but American troops showed restraint and never stormed the place. Finally Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Muslim cleric in Iraq, told al Sadr to clear out.

Now we have learned while al-Sadr was hiding in his Mosque his Islamic goons were quite busy. Their assignment was to kidnap dozens of women and children and bring them into the Mosque. There they would be murdered. I think it's possibly safe to say that many of the women were possibly raped before, maybe after, they were murdered. When al-Sistani ordered them out, Al Sadr and his gang of murderers left the bodies of the women and children inside the Mosque.

So ... what was the purpose? The Islamic killers fully expected American troops to storm the Mosque to get to them. When that happened, and after the smoke cleared, the innocent and peace-loving followers of Al Sadr would be able to show the bodies of innocent women and children who were killed in the brutal U.S. assault on this place of holy worship. Clever plan ... didn't work.

Never forget, especially now, the brutal, murderous nature of the Islamic killers. They will murder their own sisters, mothers, sons and daughters if they think that they will then be able to use the western media to blame the deaths on American soldiers. And when the time comes, the Western media will be all-too-eager to relate the story just exactly the way al-Sadr wanted them to.

i WOULD PUT aL_SADR high on a hit list. He needs to be taken out now.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 19, 2006 11:38 AM

( Sarcasm most certainly ON )

Come on Guys , What's with all this bad talk against Al Sadr?

He can't be as Bad and Evil as we all say because the Wise and Just CNN does not portray him like that . They don't make him out to be an Enemy , or murderer ,in Fact they call him the young Iraqi..

" Firebrand Cleric " ,

which almost lends LEGITIMACY to his Rebel Cause! Way to go CNN!! ( Applause)

I mean a Firebrand is not Evil , that's kinda like a Freedom fighter. Maybe like a Rosa Parks or something. I think she was called a
" Firebrand " too.

search your hearts my friends , If CNN can see a good angle in this guy , Can't we?

( Sarcasm off)

I HATE CNN!!!

Idiots! , They do more damage than good.

If i hear them refer to this guy as " the young Iraqi Firebrand cleric " one more time i'm going to puke.

He is a murdering Terrorist Freak! and nothing more.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 19, 2006 11:58 AM

I would hope we aren't considering the Shiites more dangerous just because our "pals" the Saudi Arabians are Sunni. That would mean Saudi Arabia has an influence on our policies. I'd hate to think that.
Posted by: freedomschool at December 19, 2006 09:40 AM

Daddy and dubya have wahabbis in Riyadh to thank for their riches and political careers.... and the wahabbis know it. Havn't you seen dubya dance to Riuadh's tunes? Google on 'Bush Saudi' and see for yourself... how wahabbis have pocketed the president, commander-in-chief of USA and the 'leader of the free-world'.

Posted by: Alert at December 19, 2006 12:05 PM

Iraq is a proposition country. Sadr is a proposition leader.

In 1914, Talaat Bey said that Turkey was a proposition country, and that Christians weren't part of the proposition.
See here for quotation

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 19, 2006 12:15 PM

I wrote about this some months ago. This guy leads the Madhi army. Remember back on August when there was talk about the 12th Imam? I encountered a website where young muslims were talking about the 12th Imam and where he was expected to appear.

What I found most interesting what that one guy said he was going to appear in Southern Iran, cross the border and merge with an army in Iraq where the would then ensue in a battle through Iraq and towards Syria.

Given the strong threats towards Israel and the US, I cannot understand why this nutter hasn't been eliminated a long while ago.

We have a bunch of morons sitting in Washington, kissing the butts of corporate America, completely unaware of the real threat that is building in Iran, Iraq and Syria. If they don't get their thumbs out soon, I predict that we are going to see a major merge - much worse than any 'insurgency' or 'civil war'. Our soldiers are in danger over there.

We should have eliminated this nut since he is clearly a branch of Iran. Unless Iraq is prepared to start REALLY working towards a democracy, we are going to need a nuke job on Tehran and Damascus followed by a strong warning to the rest of the moderate nutters in the region.

Posted by: The Goobs at December 19, 2006 12:31 PM

Pretty much the best way to ensure continued civil war is Gates getting on the media and defining US victory as reconciliation between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis. You can bet Al Qaeda was watching and that they are politically savvy, now they know all they need to do to hand the US a psychological defeat is to escalate the Sunni-Shiite conflict, and how hard is that?

The US military is overextended because the US is refusing to arm proxies that are willing and able to kill muslim militants, both locally, Kurds, and globally, from misguided fear of offending "moderate" muslims, whether Maliki, Musharraf, or the House of Saud. But none of these is willing to kill muslim militants in any meaningful fashion, see Musharraf's peace treaty with the Taliban. So that leaves the US military as essentially the only force that effectively kills militants and lets Al-Qaeda concentrate all it's resources on it.

They need a shift in policy. Instead of subsidizing the terror producing states such as Indonesia and Pakistan, they need to arm states that can check Islamic expansion. For example, if they arm and support in Ethiopia in Somalia, the Indians in Kashmir, and the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, and encourage the governments to crack down on muslim militants, Al-Qaeda will flock there to "protect" the muslims - and now it has to expand considerable resources to fight on three more fronts, but which fronts do not require the US to commit it's own troops to kill Al-Qaeda fighters, as the Indians and Serbs will do the killing.

Al-Qaeda does not have infinite resources, but it recruits its’ fighters globally. Therefore the US also has to in effect recruit its' fighters for this fight with Al Qaeda globally by arming governments and minority militias that are willing to kill muslim militants, not tailoring it's foreign policy to gain "allies" such as the French or Pakistan which are totally useless when it comes to actually killing the muslim militants. Al-Qaeda recruits based on false propaganda and the average Al-Qaeda recruit is in any case delusional and believes that Mossad flew the planes into the Twin Towers, so a harder line will not have that much effect on recruitment, with any increases more then balanced out by the fact that US troops will no longer be in the actual fighting against muslim militants alone, as they are now.

Further, it is a misunderstanding that the House of Saud and Musharraf supports terrorists depending on how nice they feel about the kufrs on any particular day. They in fact support the terrorists to the extent they can feel they can get away with. The only way to get a serious “moderate” muslim movement to eliminate the terrorist groups started is to make Islamic leaders, peoples, and countries pay a heavy price economically and militarily for the activities of these groups, that is you have to make it in the self-interest of muslims to eliminate these groups by exhorting a prohibitive price for the activity of these groups on the muslims as a whole.

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 19, 2006 12:58 PM

The only way to get a serious “moderate” muslim movement to eliminate the terrorist groups started is to make Islamic leaders, peoples, and countries pay a heavy price economically and militarily for the activities of these groups, that is you have to make it in the self-interest of muslims to eliminate these groups

Outstanding.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 19, 2006 1:43 PM

...make Islamic leaders, peoples, and countries pay a heavy price economically ...

BUT HOW? WHO SHOULD DO IT?

Posted by: ssa at December 19, 2006 2:26 PM

"In the future the Iraqis will blame their civil war on the US..."
-- from a posting above

Well, of course they will. They already do. Men on the street interviews, in which those men on the street explain "how everyone" got along until the bad old Americans came. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Kurds is forgotten by all the Arabs. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Shi'a by the Sunnis (the regime of Saddam Hussein being merely a disguised Sunni despotism) forgotten, certainly by almost all the Sunnis, but also by some Shi'a when they want to blame, as they do want to blame, the Infidels for everything. Everything was wonderful. In Pakistan Sipaha-e-Sahaba never attacked the Shi'a. In Afghanistan the Taliban never tried to wipe out every last Shi'a Hazara. In Lebanon, the Shi'a have never suffered or ever wanted to get back at the Sunnis. In Bahrain the Shi'a who constitute 75% of the populaton are ruled benignly by a Sunni Arab about whom they have nothing to complain. And as for the past 1300 years of Sunni-Shi'a relations, let's just say it's been roses, roses, roses all the way.

Of course the Americans are to blame, in Muslim eyes. Always will be.

But here's the amusing part. The Bush Administration cannot admit to itself that the Sunni-Shi'a divide pre-existed the invasion of Iraq by some 1300 years, and that the fissures between them would inevitably widen once the iron grip of Saddam Hussein had been removed. Because to admit that this was all inevitable, would be to raise the question: if it was all inevitable why did we not see it? For it if was inevitable, and we hadn't -- and still refuse to have -- the slightest idea of its inevitability, then there must be something wrong with us. But we can't admit that. Nor can all the commentators, for and against the war, who failed to immediately identify this inevitable outcome, and who either remained Bush loyalists, or opposed the war for all the wrong, appeasing reasons, or had some half-way measure (such as that "put in a strongman" without, of course, asking themselves would that "strongman" be Sunni -- in which case the Shi'a would never accept him -- or Shi'a, in which case the Sunnis would never accept him).

No, those who were wrong, being unable to admit it, will persist in their obstinacy. And that obstinacy requires them to deny the depth and duration of the Sunni-Shi'a split, and thus to support the view that the "Americans caused it."

A fantastic war, this Iraq war. Undertaken for one stated reason, continued long after for quite another, crazily messianic and polypragmonic reason. Supported by those who simply mechanically rallied around the Bush-Republican-conservative wagons, without considering what was actually going on. And even today, still unable to see the folly of the Bush and now Gates definition of "victory" which is the very opposite of what should be desired.

When Gates says failure to obtain "victory" -- by which he means ending the Sunni-Shi'a violence, and forcing the Kurds to permanently acquiesce in remaining within Arab-ruled Iraq, he has it all backwards. He speaks of "catastrophe." But the real "catastrophe" would be if the Americans, after having squandered 3,000 lives, and 22,000 wounded, and a half-trillion dollars in sunk or committed future expenses, and done great damage to both the materiel and the morale of the armed services, not cheap to repair in one case, not easily recovered in the other, were to continue to squander men, money, and materiel in order to achieve the opposite of what would constitute a kind of victory, through dividing and demoralizing and thereby weakening the Camp of Islam --well, this would be the greatest self-inflicted defeat in American history, one entirely avoidable if the right understanding of the instruments, and full scope, of the menace of Jihad is understood.

But it is not understood. Not by Bush. Not by Cheney. Not by Rice. Not by Gates. Not by the idiotic Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Not by The New Duranty Times. Not by The Bandar Beacon. Not by the bright-eyed "insurgency experts" who keep making plans to win hearts and minds in Iraq, and speak confidently, and irrelevantly, aout how insurgencies "last on average ten years" without considering that this "insurgency" is Islam-based, and as long as Islam is there, the Infidels will always be fought, and as long as Islam is there, the ethnic and sectarian divisions within Islam will never be overcome, because the spirit of compromise, especially peaceful compromise, is contradicted by the tenets and attitudes of the belief-system of Islam.

How long will it take this learning-curve to begin to take off, as it still strains and strains and strains to slope upward?

Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2006 2:27 PM

Meanwhile, everyone has gotten used to the idea that there is nothing unusual in a cleric having a militia in the first place.
..........................................................

I think this is a very important point.

I do think that Falwell's comments about 9/11 being caused by feminists and gays and the ACLU "making God mad" rather than the actions of Jihadists was fairly insane. Likewise, Pat Robertson's assertion that Ariel Sharon was not merely misguided in his withdrawal from Gaza, but had invited the wrath of God smiting him down in the form of a life-threatening stoke is, shall we say, less than useful.

But neither man commands a militia. Falwell does not have a death squad abducting members of the ACLU from their offices. Pat Robertson isn't sending suicide bombers to greet Hugo Chavez at his next appearance at the UN.

That anyone accepts this in Islamic "clerics" should be considered appalling.

Posted by: gravenimage at December 19, 2006 2:40 PM

Wow Hugh, your entire post was awesome. I wish I could write so eloquently and precise.

Posted by: Bonniea at December 19, 2006 3:02 PM

I wrote about this some months ago. This guy leads the Madhi army. Remember back on August when there was talk about the 12th Imam? I encountered a website where young muslims were talking about the 12th Imam and where he was expected to appear.

Posted by The Goobs

Hey Goobs! I've missed your postings. Hope you're doing well. My friend and I were discussing this 12th Imam that is supposed to appear and he mentioned that Sadr could be it. I have to say it makes me wonder. In Christianity we believe the 12th Imam is the False Prophet that paves the way for the Anti-Christ who is supposed to emerge from the Iran area. What are your thoughts on this?

Posted by: Bonniea at December 19, 2006 3:08 PM

Not only are they a threat but Iran is behind lock stock and barrel, in a determined effort to topple US influence in the area read on:

The End of Dollar Supremacy: Iran announced yesterday ordering the central bank to direct foreign transactions and transform the state's dollar-denominated assets held abroad to the single European currency instead of the U.S. currency. "The government has ordered the central bank to replace the dollar with the Euro to limit the problems of the executive organs in commercial transactions," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters.

The switch will include not only in the budget but also foreign as well as oil trade, and assets abroad, ending Iran's dollar dependence.

"Some banks abroad are also willing to go Euro in dealing with us and there is no problem if some others want to do business in other exchanges based on their preference," said governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), adding that the country's FRF stands at $ 10 billion, indicating a 35 percent growth over last year.

It has been said that he who holds the gold makes the rules.

Will other oil producing countries in the Middle East, members of The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), follow the suit?

A switch by OPEC members from the U.S. currency to the Euro could enhance the value of the Euro, the new official currency of the European Union (EU) which first came into existence on Jan. 1, 1999, further, ending the U.D. Dollar supremacy.

Posted by: Cyberray at December 19, 2006 7:54 PM

lol somethign just struck me- 'nothing unusual with the clerics having militias"? Perhaps Christians should form militias in the middle east too- after all, it wouldn't be 'unusual' evidently http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at December 19, 2006 9:25 PM

The US needs stop fighting the war in Iraq like a bunch of politicians.

It's time to Release The Hounds!!!

The US could have ended this war years ago with all of its military might but they instead decided to fight this war door to door to prevent the loss of innocent lives.

Although that is a nobel gesture it is not a very practical one dealing with the extremist and insurgents in Iraq.

It's time for the US to flex it Air Power and carpet bomb the hell out of Al Sadr's militia hideouts and training basis.

The sooner we get rid of this piece of trash the sooner we will be able to get out of Iraq as it will send a message that all bets are off and extremist groups will not be tolerated any longer.

Posted by: ESquare at December 20, 2006 12:37 AM

The only way to get a serious “moderate” muslim movement to eliminate the terrorist groups started is to make Islamic leaders, peoples, and countries pay a heavy price economically and militarily for the activities of these groups, that is you have to make it in the self-interest of muslims to eliminate these groups

Outstanding.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses

........eliminate all , let Allah sort em out, the best way to stop all this bickering , in-fighting, ego tripping, incestuous, thumping of the chests, sword waving, finger pointing Muslim realm of insanity.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 20, 2006 8:15 AM

In Christianity we believe the 12th Imam is the False Prophet that paves the way for the Anti-Christ who is supposed to emerge from the Iran area. What are your thoughts on this?

Posted by: Bonniea

Hi Bonniea, I know that there are many theories of who the beast and anti-christ will be. I believe that it is possible that islam plays a major role. We know that the scriptures tell us that islam is anti-Christ because it denies the Son of God. I wonder if anti-Christ can be something more than a person. Perhaps a force of some kind....for example a false religion or politican entity or even financial body. Whatever anti-Christ IS, it will be anti-Christian and anti-Jew and will demand the complete allegance (worship)of everyone in the world - in order to buy and sell.

Islam is a major player, bringing us to the place where world chaos will bring the return of Jesus.

What folks either do not know or completely forget is that islam was created hundreds of years after Christ. Mohammud learned of Christianity and Judiasm and compiled his false religion from there. So, it is not surprising that islam would invent a false Jesus (being demonically inspired) that would fit nicely into the anti-Christ personality. Bringing along his false prophet - perhaps the 12th Imam?

What makes little sense to me is how this false Jesus would fool the Jews??? They know that their Messiah must be a direct descendant of King David. How would this false christ fool them into believing, unless of course God himself puts a delusion on them along with the rest of the world.

At any rate, we should not spend our time looking for the anti-Christ but rather watching and praying for the return of the REAL Jesus.

Merry Christmas!

Posted by: The Goobs at December 20, 2006 2:11 PM