Albu Issa tribe hates al-qaeda as much as the US.
either way good news terrorists are being killed by other muslims. this keeps up the Sunni will mop up for the US.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 2, 2007 7:33 AM

Dhimmitude at the ABC: “9 to stand trial over alleged terrorism plot” Not a word about 'Islam or Muslims..'

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/05/02/dhimmitude-at-the-abc-9-to-stand-trial-over-alleged-terrorism-plot/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 2, 2007 7:49 AM

The tribes "coming to the US side" is one thing that has been going on behind the scenes for quite a while now and was being ignored by many here who were/are getting on the abandon Iraq bandwagon. One would have to ignore it and other positive news to ethically take the position of walking away from Iraq.

Because of this I for one am holding Bill Roggio and other non-defeatists in higher reguard than JihadWatch, I am totally sick about the walk away attitude I've seen growing here.

Posted by: Jesse at May 2, 2007 8:14 AM

There have always been Iraqis who favor working with the US...the problem is they cannot get away from those crazed finger pointing bearded Islamic Clerics who preach from the barrel of the gun...killing all that refuse to fight...almost daily, US forces find 20-30 multilated bodies showing signs of horrible torture...after being tortured, the victims are usually shot in the head....Yet, in Bagdad and in other Iraqi cities,Iraqi informants continue to bring in good information and ever so slowly, the jihadists are being rooted out....

....of course, it has been pointed out in many sources that most of the violent jihadists are coming in from other Islamic countries, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, etc....

The reason you do not see items such as the "tribes" story, is because, the MSM considers such stories to reflect a Bush victory and a defeat for the dhimmicrats....since the MSM violently hates Bush, nothing that would indicate a victory will get published...

...just the facts, ma'am....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 2, 2007 8:27 AM

Well, those stories were there for those who cared to find them.

In my opinion some of those here who advocate walking away in Iraq have crossed the line between objectivity and subjectivity - their comments read like the extremely opinionated anti-Bush et al rants you would see at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.

Doing that takes away legitimacy from the commenter and Jihadwatch in general.

Posted by: Jesse at May 2, 2007 8:49 AM

jesse wrote:
"The tribes "coming to the US side" is one thing that has been going on behind the scenes for quite a while now and was being ignored by many here who were/are getting on the abandon Iraq bandwagon. One would have to ignore it and other positive news to ethically take the position of walking away from Iraq."

"abandon Iraq", "ethically take the position" ?

I see you still suffer from that moral conundrum of yours during a most inappropriate time of war. Defeatists is an improper label. The goal in Iraq was completed, with the eradication of Hussein and his military.

So the "tribes" are switching sides, so what. They do it often. It is merely a minor realignment in preparation for the ensuing 'battle royale' that will occur once the US leaves, which hopefully is soon.

Your position to 'stay the course' is well-documented despite your complete lack of comprehension of where that course will lead, which is also well-documented. Reid is a defeatist, because he said the war is lost. Intelligent people know otherwise, that victory is already achieved, to weaken one's enemy, our's being the adherents to the ideology of Islam. So let's wrap it up over there, since our depleted military needs a respite and our attention will be drawn elsewhere before too long.

There is nothing the US can do to quell the violence in Iraq. It started when the 'parental supervision' of Hussein was removed, but I for one do not subscribe to the "you broke it you own it" scenario indefinately.

Maybe you and Roggio should join up. Another two pairs of boots on the ground might make the difference.

Posted by: awake at May 2, 2007 8:50 AM

Hey awake - please go back to the lsureveille.com and see what "mahmoud" has written on the Muslim's column. The ad hominem depravity is truly barbaric. Thanks, darcy

Posted by: darcy at May 2, 2007 9:22 AM

"The goal in Iraq was completed, with the eradication of Hussein and his military."

That was the goal?? As defined by who??

From my observations Iraq was never considered to be an isolated operation, it has always been described as PART of the general War on Terror. Those who advocate walking away will seek to put Iraq into a box of its own - that will help justify the walk-away position. In order to split Iraq away from the general WOT you have to ignore a LOT of data like this; Posts 80-85

Just a little illustration there is a lot going on that neither I, nor you, knows about.

"Maybe you and Roggio should join up. Another two pairs of boots on the ground might make the difference. "

See?? EXACTLY what you would see at Daily Kos or Democrat Underground!

I rest my case.

Posted by: Jesse at May 2, 2007 9:43 AM

This story should be shoved under Harry(Benedict Arnold)Reid's nose. Take that Harry Reid. Take that President? Pelosi. Take that slow bleed Murtha! NOW SHUT THE HELL UP AND GIVE THE REAL PRESIDENT THE MONEY!

I agree, however, that any reference the the "Global War on Terror" should not be used in any government documents. Rather the Real enemy should be named as the War against Gobal Jihad.

Let's stop using euphamisms and misnomers and call the spade a spade. Political Correctness be Damned!

Posted by: TEXROCK at May 2, 2007 9:59 AM

Miniter was talking about this yesterday. Paraphrasing, military officers ‘like the results but don’t want to know the details.’ Reportedly the Sunni tribes move in and wipe out entire families. If the US officials know the details, they can be put on trial.

There will be a time in the not too distant future when reality will force us to look at reality. It doesn’t have much in common with PBS.

Posted by: pez at May 2, 2007 10:19 AM

"So let's wrap it up over there, since our depleted military needs a respite and our attention will be drawn elsewhere before too long."

Posted by: awake

...ok boys, unplug your nintendo, and go to bed! tomorrow is another day and you may be called upon to rescue the world from the scurvy skinheads in Arkansas....forget those mischievous Muslims, they mean you no harm....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 2, 2007 10:28 AM

I agree, however, that any reference the the "Global War on Terror" should not be used in any government documents. Rather the Real enemy should be named as the War against Gobal Jihad.
Let's stop using euphamisms and misnomers and call the spade a spade. Political Correctness be Damned!
Posted by: TEXROCK

Why is there such a reluctance to call a spade a spade? Mike w on another thread complains that he is sick of commentators refering to 'radical Islam', 'moderate muslims, when in fact neither exist.
I Spend time in a car so I listen to a lot of talk radio, mostly conservative, Hannity, Ingraham, Savage, Medvid, Gallager, Rush, will not tell us who the enemy really is, they wont use the 'I' word without qualifiers, it's always 'radical Islam or moderate muslims. Like terrorism and jihad, radical and moderate are tactics, not a state of being. The state of being that wields these swords is Islam.
/Allah. This morning I heard Melanie Phillips also ignoring the 'I' word and stating that the jihadists were using an 'interpretation' of the Quran...yes, the right one.
We are lost when even the spokespeople for our side (supposedly) refuse to properly identify the enemy.
I will now do that for them. The enemy is Islam.
No qualifiers. One word Islam, and behind that, Allah...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 2, 2007 10:58 AM

The T word mentioned above should be 'I' word. I type in the dark and my fingers are too large for the keys...sorry..

Posted by: duh_swami at May 2, 2007 11:01 AM

See, I did it again...Oh well, will someone please light a candle?

Posted by: duh_swami at May 2, 2007 11:03 AM

I wonder if the U.S. has a true handle on what's going on in Iraq...(I suspect the Americans are outsiders, many of them clueless -- as to be expected. You can't instantly know all the internal politics of a tribe(s)..unless you've lived there and around said tribe for 20 years or so, even then everyone probably has an agenda.)

CNN reported today about "The Office" in Iraq. It is some shadowy unit...some say it's sinister, others say its "just advisory" to the prime minister (Nouri al-Maliki's) government. The ones saying it's sinister allege that "The Office" is systematically removing military commanders from the field who are tasked with going after Shiite militias (the Shiite militias doing the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis.) If true, it suggests that the Maliki government is not focused on unity, but focused on extending a radical Shiite agenda (meaning Shiite dominance/take-over of Iraq). Only the "insiders" at "The Office" know for sure -- and they're not about to let any outsiders (like Americans) figure out what's going on.

Posted by: J.S. at May 2, 2007 11:12 AM

I use "Islam" and "Muslims."

No qualifiers.

Posted by: darcy at May 2, 2007 12:16 PM

Jesse,

It is apparent that you and I will continue disagree on this point. The initial ruse for going into Iraq was on the grounds of faulty information about their possession of WMDs and in conjunction with Iraq's numerous UN sanction violations and prohibitive allowances for areas that UN inspectors could operate.

The association of Iraq with the "global war on terror" was an amendment to the reason we invaded Iraq once the WMD's were not found, this secondary "mission" with specific regards to the specific connection between al-qaeda and Hussein's regime was not adequately proven either.

Subsequently, to demonstrate to all that there really is no limit to his stupidity, Bush then tried to pass off Iraq as an exportation of democracy project, yet the palms laid at the feet of liberating US forces by the thankful Iraqi people never materialized.

So Bush is mired in his own conundrum as well. "The Iraqi's need us and their freedom will make us safer" compared to, "the global war on terror is centered in Iraq right now and we must fight them over there or fight them over here." He of course, follows that up with no real effort to secure US borders or reform immigration policy in over six years of his tenure so far?? Bush may possess limitless ignorance, but I do not.

Defense of Bush's policy in Iraq as a reflex-response against the democrats is fallacious at best. Bush has never demonstrated any real knowlegde of Islam or the Islamists, whether willfully or simply innocently ignorant does not matter. Neither reflect well of the man himself.

Unlike yourself, I conmsider the elimination of the Baathist regime a miltary success, with a beginning and an end. Harry Reid is wrong because he doesn't comprehend the additional victory for the West that will inevitably occur, when the US vacates the area. Just read ANY article by Hugh on the subject and then maybe you can begin to understand that.

The two problems that you have Jesse are not new, so I will remind you of them again.

First, You insist on staying in Iraq but do not have a clue as to exactly what you're fighting for as a military objective, unless you mean us to stay until all the Islamists are dead. The "war on terror" will not end anytime soon in the Iraqi desert. We need to re-group because Islamic jihad seems to be everywhere at the moment.

Secondly, and most important I believe, is that you insist on staying in this war for ethical reasons. I have stated to you before that war and morality do not mix. To date, the US has toppled Hussein's regime and simultaneously ignited traditional secterian violence amongst Muslims. They are killing each other and will become more efficient at it when unhindered by US forces. Death to one's enemies is how you win a war and if our enemies happen to kill themselves faster than we can...so be it.

You need to stop worrying about leftist blogs and learn more about Islam, because in my opinion, both the left and the right, with the exception of a small few, are equally clueless about the subject. And for the record, you are free to explain what you would have our current military objective to be in Iraq. I recollect that I posed that exact question to you over a month ago.

...still waiting...

Posted by: awake at May 2, 2007 1:10 PM

Hey awake - please go back to the lsureveille.com and see what "mahmoud" has written on the Muslim's column. The ad hominem depravity is truly barbaric. Thanks, darcy

Darcy, do you have the link available?

Posted by: awake at May 2, 2007 1:12 PM

I will repeat what Senator Norm Coleman stated about Anbar in visiting Minnesota National Guard there 2 weeks ago.
Anbar is overwhelming in the things going on there for the positive.

This Sunni area is joining the government and now has accomplished the surgical removal of the cancer of al Qaeda from the province.

For those who do not get it yet, Iraq is forming a central government with people who are IRAQI in their mindset from Kurds, Christians, Shia and Sunni. They are turning loose in the battle for their nation now and this is the first of many weeding out skirmishes.

This IS the Iraqi democracy at work. It doesn't matter if they hate America as their guns are turned against American enemies. This is Bush policy as it has evolved under Patraues.

Iraq is a success and it will form a government now of Iraqi nationals. The downside is now the people who "want out of Iraq" have now ended the Iraqi kill zone and all those terrorists are going to show up in America and Europe.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 2, 2007 1:15 PM

Awake,

I said what what I thought the military objective should be in Iraq you were obviously too busy building the strawman you call me to notice.

Why in the world do you think you know better what I think than *I* do??

Is there any point in my trying to have a discussion with you when you are arguing my position for me using a strawman you invented in your own mind and are calling "Jesse"?

This is ANOTHER tactic one sees ad nauseum at Kos and Democratic Underground et al.

I've made about ten posts here and you got me 100% pegged but I've got news for you, your imagination and crystal ball couldn't be more wrong.

You do not know what I think about 99% of the issues surrounding Iraq and the War against Terror and are making some very outlandish assumptions.

Unless you quit doing that my conversation with you is over.

Jesse

Posted by: Jesse at May 2, 2007 2:03 PM

Jesse wrote:
"I said what what I thought the military objective should be in Iraq you were obviously too busy building the strawman you call me to notice."

I don't know about building a straw man here, but in reality, I must have missed what you said about the objective in Iraq. Would you PLEASE provide it again?

By the way, when your first post on this thread states, and I quote; "Because of this I for one am holding Bill Roggio and other non-defeatists in higher reguard than JihadWatch, I am totally sick about the walk away attitude I've seen growing here.", you must have realized that you'd be receiving an opposing opinion or two...right?

Posted by: awake at May 2, 2007 2:13 PM

Jesse,

As an addendum, since I haven't visited Daily Kos or Democratic Underground, could you clarify if the "pull out of Iraq now" consensus that is found there constitutes a Harry Reid-ish "the war is lost" or the Hugh Fitzgerald-ish "the war is won and will continue with or without us"?

While both means are the same, the intended ends are vastly different.

Posted by: awake at May 2, 2007 2:31 PM

Jesse,

Here is the link to our last discussion on the matter.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015842.php

Regards,

awake

Posted by: awake at May 2, 2007 2:46 PM

I use "Islam" and "Muslims."

No qualifiers.
Posted by: darcy

This is because you are intelligent, well informed, and dont duck the issue.
More people like you are needed...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 2, 2007 2:52 PM