"The munitions were confiscated and turned over to the Iraqi police....."

....I am not convinced that is what I would do....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 12, 2007 7:15 AM

please enough of thie PC, bomb iran now! talk is cheapQ

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 12, 2007 7:59 AM

When will Iran be taken to task for anything it does? No wonder Iran feels invincable.

Posted by: Elric66 at July 12, 2007 8:28 AM

Who cares anymore? Every day we see stories like these and yet not one damn thing is done regarding Iran. A half million Iranian troops can pour across the border at this point and still nothing will be done. No wonder Tehran's simian in chief laughs at us- I would too if I were him.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at July 12, 2007 8:41 AM

I was 12 yrs old back in 79 during the hostage crisis. I just hit 40, one thing I have been sayin' since I was 12 (even after graduating college in the northeast) We better get them before they nuke us. Nothing has changed. Except now we have a bunch of Carters on both sides of the aisle. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! I love our country, I know I'm preachin to the choir on this site. Appeasement does not work. Our forefathers must be rollin over in shame.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at July 12, 2007 8:58 AM

"The munitions were confiscated and turned over to the Iraqi police for destruction."

Mmmmmm, yes. The Iraqi police are trustworthy arent they? No chance of any Sunni jihadists, Moqtada's hencemen, Al Queda, Iranians, Syrians or Hezbollah being part of the make up?

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 12, 2007 9:27 AM

"Wimps," House GOP leader John Boehner (Bonehead) called Republican defectors in the Senate

Well, I guess I'm a wimp because I'm tired of this crap. Check this out Boner:

Iraqi police assisted gunmen
Posted 10h 22m ago | Comments 59 | Recommend 22 E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this
By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
A previously undisclosed Army investigation into an audacious January attack in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers concludes that Iraqi police working alongside American troops colluded with insurgents.

The assault on the night of Jan. 20 stunned U.S. officials with its planning and sophistication. A column of SUVs filled with gunmen who posed as an American security team passed through Iraqi police checkpoints at a provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city.

ASSAULT IN KARBALA: Insurgents familiar with compound

Within a few minutes, the attackers killed one American, wounded three and abducted four. The captives were later found shot to death; the gunmen escaped.

"(The American) defense hinged on a level of trust that … early warning and defense would be provided by the Karbala Iraqi police. This trust was violated," the report dated Feb. 27 says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-11-karbala-report_N.htm

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at July 12, 2007 9:30 AM

Has anyone read this article by Ibrahim Hooper?

Another view: We repudiate terrorism
American Muslims aren’t silent about the taking of innocent lives.
By Ibrahim Hooper

In the wake of the recent terror plot in Britain, American Muslims are once again being asked why we are "silent" on the issue of terrorism committed in the name of Islam.

It is a valid question, but one that frustrates those of us who repeatedly and consistently condemn terrorism in all its forms.

I recall the tragic day of Sept. 11, 2001, when a coalition of leading Muslim groups issued what was perhaps the first statement by any organization condemning the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

Since 9/11, I have personally written dozens of statements condemning terrorism in all its forms, whether suicide bombings in the Middle East, terror attacks in London and Madrid, the killing of Christian missionaries in Yemen, or a shooting at a Jewish center in Seattle.

In the past six years, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has coordinated the release of a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) repudiating terrorism and religious extremism, initiated an online petition drive called "Not in the Name of Islam," and distributed a related TV public service announcement that has been seen by some 10 million viewers nationwide.

This repeated repudiation of terrorism is not prompted by outside pressure, but by the basic Islamic principle that no one has the right to take innocent life.

CAIR officials and representatives of other major American Muslim groups regularly reinforce Islam's rejection of attacks on civilians when they speak to community and interfaith organizations, media outlets and law enforcement officials.

American Muslims are also working with local, state and national law enforcement agencies to help make our nation more secure.

Yet despite striving daily to remind our fellow Americans that we do repudiate the terrorists who falsely claim to represent Islam, we are still grilled about the Muslim community's "silence" on the issue.

The deadly phenomenon of terrorism will not be eliminated by condemnations alone. A real end to terror will come only when the mainstream followers of all faiths and citizens of all nations work together to marginalize extremists and to build a future based on freedom and justice.

American Muslims stand ready to help build that better future for all our children.

Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties group.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/post-17.html#more

Posted by: Rafa at July 12, 2007 9:57 AM

so rafa, care to define "innocent lives" and what exactly are "freedom and justice" based upon? sharia law and the koran? how about our Constitution?

I've read enough over the last couple of years to know that one must parse the words of all moslems.

Also, IMHO, terrorism will stop when the imams stop urging moslems to "defend islam" against the "Great Satan" and saudi arabia stops exporting imams throughout the world.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at July 12, 2007 10:19 AM

Has everyone signed and forwarded the "islamo-fascist petition" on the top, left of the page??
This needs to be put in front of Congress and also the UN for the world to see.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at July 12, 2007 10:27 AM

Rafa, sorry, that is all meaningless.
What is the big deal saying "We are against murder"?
If muslims want to help why HAS NOT 1 SIGNED THE FATWA AGAINST OSAMA AND ALL HIS ASSISTANTS!?!?
This was sponsored by the United American Committee and not 1 muslim deisres to sign.
Are there not 4-6 million muzbots living in the USA today?
How can you muslims NOT sign a petition-FATWA AGAINST Osama?
He is 1 of the biggest terrorists today since the time of mohammed and no muslim anywhere is even signing a petition against him.
How can we trust muslims in action when they wont even join with the free world in just words?
Another thing, why has not 1 muslim EVER turned in another muslim that helped the west forestall an islamic attack on a western target?
I never plan on trusting any muslims anywhere at anytime.
I really should be more tolerant of muslims.
Realistically, how can I blame you people.
Muslims are killing muslims everyday around the world.
Just look at sunnis killing shites, shites killing sunnis, Iraqis killing Iraqis, Pakis killing Pakis, it NEVER ends.
Now what hope would a NON-MUSLIM ever have living in an islamic land.....none.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at July 12, 2007 10:36 AM

Regarding the munitions caches: where there's one, there's another, and another, and another....

Regarding the Karbala story, I heard the same thing about two hours ago and it's stories like that which arouse my anger and my willingness to drop everything and leave Iraq. What does it matter? Whether we leave tomorrow or a decade or a century from now, it will be construed by some as a victory for Islam. Why waste our national treasure, meaning our young men and women, fighting for people who don't deserve it?

A colonel in Iraq was trying to make us feel good about the Iraqi people by telling a story of how a man in his unit saved one of the local children from drowning. A day after the boy was saved his father came back to the men and thanked them and then proceeded to take them around the village showing them the IED and munitions caches.

This was a glass is half full story.
It was hard not to see it as a glass half empty - the man knew all along what was going on but kept his mouth shut. How many men from that company were killed or maimed by these munitions before one man's son almost drowned? Had his boy not faced such a situation, would this man be looking at coalition forces with distrust and silently cheering their deaths?

Posted by: PMK at July 12, 2007 10:44 AM

Ibrahim Hooper, the CAIR spokesperson (CAIR is part and parcel of the Muslim Brotherhood), states that he condemns "terrorism in all its forms." Now just what do you think that means? as I laugh. Hooper and his CAIR buddies define "terrorism" as ANY act of self-defense against Jihadists. Thus, the United States in Iraq is "terrorism." NATO in Afghanistan is "terrorism." Israel's IDF attempting to stop the rockets being fired into Israel from Gaza are "terrorists." Ok? Understood now? So, NO - no intelligent person believes the CAIR propaganda lies which are designed to protect, foster, and encourage terrorist Islamic Jihadists.

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 10:47 AM

Iran must wonder why the US, or Israel, has not attacked it yet, dispite continual provocations.
They must realise that hesitation is not based on fear of Iranian might. A million Iranian troops charging across the border, could easilly be stopped by a couple of well placed daisy cutters. The one's not pushing up daisys would retreat. Israel could do the same thing to Syria if they charge across any borders. Domination from the air saves troops.
Iran will continue provoations untill stopped.
But they must be getting nervous...where's Mahdi when you need him?

Posted by: duh_swami at July 12, 2007 10:47 AM

There are many Iranians in civic and academic circles who want to overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime. Maybe we're covertly working on that???

Posted by: atheling at July 12, 2007 11:10 AM

Somebody's asleep at the switches at JWatch.

This is the biggest story of the day:

Iraqi police assisted gunmen

By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY

A previously undisclosed Army investigation into an audacious January attack in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers concludes that Iraqi police working alongside American troops colluded with insurgents.

The assault on the night of Jan. 20 stunned U.S. officials with its planning and sophistication. A column of SUVs filled with gunmen who posed as an American security team passed through Iraqi police checkpoints at a provincial headquarters in the Shiite holy city.

ASSAULT IN KARBALA: Insurgents familiar with compound

Within a few minutes, the attackers killed one American, wounded three and abducted four. The captives were later found shot to death; the gunmen escaped.

"(The American) defense hinged on a level of trust that … early warning and defense would be provided by the Karbala Iraqi police. This trust was violated," the report dated Feb. 27 says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-11-karbala-report_N.htm

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at July 12, 2007 11:12 AM

And, it is not just that the Iraqi police assisted in the killing of Americans in Karbala -- but the whole deal was masterminded by Iranians. It was the Iranians who planned the operation and then had the Iraqi police assist them.

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 11:19 AM

This is the biggest story of the day?

Ynkedoodl2:

This is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. How many times in the past have you read that insurgents have penetrated the army, the police and all instruments of government?

This story is just the latest in the litany of reasons why Americans need to vacate Iraq.

Posted by: PMK at July 12, 2007 12:05 PM

When do you think the military/political complex will realise that you cant trust any of these people? Not even one of them. This is part of the retardedness of Bushs plan. If you want something done right, do it yourself. What is the point of pushing this 'war' any further? Even if the surge works, it wont 'end' anything. You cant force democracy on people who dont want it. The few that do are outnumbered by those prefering Sharia, which is not the least bit democratic. Even if Bushs plan worked so well that Iraq got so quiet, and complacent, that we could leave, in a short time sht would start again. 'Warfare is ordained for you'. Now aint that the truth...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 12, 2007 12:22 PM

To vacate Iraq may just be a mistake, trying to create and end-game. Did the dhimmi's pay attention to anything? If we leave we keep fighting them in Afgahnistan! They keep running and hiding in Iraq, Iran, we will be there forever!
Just like chess we must and will face them in another place! The Iraqi's suffer like Afghanistan did when we did it to them in the first place!
Lebanon attacking the Palestine camp, they have already predicted out steps and theirs. As if Admadmanofjews did not know. If those posters don't say something. With all the propaganda on it. Pretty talented people!

Posted by: MZ at July 12, 2007 12:35 PM

If the Americans pull out of Iraq, Iran will move in. Iran will then become a super state. (I think the truth should be realized -- Americans are fighting Iran and Iranians, right now in Iraq.) The question is: do we want an enlarged and expanded Iran?

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 12:45 PM

Hooper says:

"American Muslims are also working with local, state and national law enforcement agencies to help make our nation more secure."

Yes, Some cooperation.

All I see are presentations on muslim sensitivity training, and demands for grant money from DHS to make their fortresses/mosques more secure.

That's a real big help to our security.

Now if they would turn in a fellow jihadist upon discovering a plot, that would be real cooperation.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at July 12, 2007 12:52 PM

And, when Hooper says, "Yet despite striving daily to remind our fellow Americans that we do repudiate the terrorists who falsely claim to represent Islam.." Hooper is thinking of George Bush. thus, it's "we repudiate the terrorists [George Bush and company] who falsely claim to represent Islam..." [that would be Bush's repeated remarks about Islam being a "religon of peace" when all followers know otherwise...that Islam is a religion of submission.]

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 1:05 PM

If the Americans pull out of Iraq, Iran will move in. Iran will then become a super state. (I think the truth should be realized -- Americans are fighting Iran and Iranians, right now in Iraq.) The question is: do we want an enlarged and expanded Iran?
Posted by: J.S.

No, J.S. the good guys are Prime Minister Maliki and his bunch of Shia thugs. Just so happens they all took refuge in Iran under Saddam's rule. But don't worry about Iran! Doncha know, the bad guys are Al-Qaeda (Al-Qaeda in Mesapotamia) who are Sunni Muslims. Of course the Shiites hate us too. So in effect we are squeezed between two enemies who hate each other, but in the end hate us a little more. Maybe.

Comprende?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at July 12, 2007 1:10 PM

J.S. says:

"If the Americans pull out of Iraq, Iran will move in. Iran will then become a super state. (I think the truth should be realized -- Americans are fighting Iran and Iranians, right now in Iraq.) The question is: do we want an enlarged and expanded Iran? "

J.S., I also believe that Iran is a significant reason for our failures in Iraq. (Islam itself being THE primary reason). But as long as Iran shows the intent, like that reported in this article, to annex Iraq into its Islamic Republic the STATED goal of our president, that is to establish an independent and democratic nation of Iraq, becomes more and more unattainable.

Your argument is another version of the idea that we must stay in Iraq so that we can fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

The supply of potential jihadist within the ummah
is enormous. Those jihadist could keep us busy fighting for hundreds of years. Is it your proposal that the U.S. just resign to a policy of indefinitely having a military presence somewhere in the middle east so that we can keep the jihadist itching for some action against the most hated infidel of them all busy?

The notion of an expanded Iran is worthy of our attention but not worthy of an indefinite state of declared war against those Islamic "extremist" within Iraq. I am not so sure that it would be a cakewalk for Iran to succeed in their plans and the whole dispute over who eventually controls Iraq, sunni v. shia, could take quite a while to sort out and as Hugh has stated exhaustively on the site, it will be to our advantage to let those fissures rupture and weaken the "camp of Islam".

Iran must be dealt with. Tommorow is not soon enough IMHO. How can we, or how will any president dare attack Iran, and expand the "war on Terror" ( as Bush inaccurately describes what is our defensive struggle against jihad), when the national debate is all about reducing the military's role in Iraq?

We can and should simply declare victory and leave while at the same time develop a stategy for attacking Iran, and develop a case for the support of the American people (screw the case for the UN, it would take 5 years to build that case, and we have a credibility issue that could be insurmountable given the last case against WMDs).

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at July 12, 2007 1:27 PM

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) called for comity yesterday during a meeting of the Republican Conference after House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) referred to Senate GOP colleagues favoring a change of course in Iraq as “wimps.”

During the Vietnam War, he [Boehner] enlisted in the Navy. He was discharged after eight weeks of training because of a bad back.

ROFLMAO!

Posted by: feralcat9 at July 12, 2007 1:53 PM

Declare victory and pull out? That's a joke. I'm not happy about being in Iraq either, but to pull out and let Iran take over is NOT a victory. Saying so won't make it so.

Posted by: atheling at July 12, 2007 1:55 PM

Nurse: Doctor Bush, how is it going with that Iraqi patient that you are treating?

Doctor Bush: The patient’s kidneys have failed and his liver is failing but he still has a faint heart beat, so I would rate his overall condition as mixed to satisfactory.

Posted by: feralcat9 at July 12, 2007 2:06 PM

feralcat9 you should not judge a person's disability, l have two brothers with severe bad backs, and know of others.. its a silent pain as many do not see it, but the people experienceing it do. Besides those in the senate are wimps and only looking out for themselves , re-elections etc.. they have been too long in the senate need to leave.

back to this Hooper guy from Rafa , its easy to see his words are useless when muslims terror attacks compromise the vast majority of attacks in the world. l am sure you can look up sites with exact percentages it is probably over 90 percent terrorists attacks are casued by muslims.
This think of this " if Israeli IDF forces lay down their arms, Israel would be destroyed. If Muslim terrorists, ie Hammas,etc would lay down their arms, there would be peace in the world. so you can put hoopers's remarks where the sun dont shine.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 12, 2007 2:43 PM

ZenaWarriorPrincess, if Boehner is free to judge a persons "wimpability" then I am free to judge his "disability".

It is only fair.

When he calls those who want to leave tarbaby Iraq whimps, he is calling me a wimp.

I served, he did not.

Posted by: feralcat9 at July 12, 2007 2:57 PM

feralcat9:

Sorry, but it's not fair. You can't make a judgment on a person's PHYSICAL disability unless you've examined him or have a doctor's certification.

However, you CAN judge a person's "wimpability" (new word!) based on his actions and words.

Apples and oranges.

Posted by: atheling at July 12, 2007 3:03 PM

atheling,

Victory can be declared. We succeeded in the original mission. Saddam was removed and we satisfied ourselves WMD were not a threat.

If that was not the original mision please inform to what you believe it was.

Project democracy became mission # 2. Sort of an afterthought. It is not succeeding and is not likely to succeed. The reason has everything to do with Islam and our presidents refusal to educate himself on what Islam and jihad is all about. I'd like to hear your reasons on why you think it will. I'd like you to state what would have to occur so that we can declare victory. If establishing a stable democratic Iraq is not our current mission, please inform what our mission is this day.

Perhaps looking at Hugh's essay on Victory can provide a few common points of agreement. See it here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014881.php

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at July 12, 2007 3:34 PM

When will Iran be taken to task for anything it does? No wonder Iran feels invincable.

Posted by: Elric66

Probably as soon as the globalists in China/Russia/US/EU, etc. can agree on how they will split the oil.

Posted by: The Goobs at July 12, 2007 3:39 PM

J.S.
If the Americans pull out of Iraq, Iran will move in. Iran will then become a super state. (I think the truth should be realized -- Americans are fighting Iran and Iranians, right now in Iraq.) The question is: do we want an enlarged and expanded Iran?

Your wrong. Your analysis is wrong.

Saudi Arabia has publically said that if the USA & UK pull out, then they will support the minority Sunni in Iraq

Remember last year when Israel was fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon? Did you notice how quiet Saudi Arabia was during the conflict? That was because they dont like the accendency of the Shia backed by Iran. A number of Sunni majority countries have no intention of letting Iran dominate the Middle East. And with the Sunni being 90% of Muslims, it is by no means certain that Iran will dominate.

The USA & UK should pull out, immediately. Civil war will erupt. As longer as no one resorts to nuclear that is fine. And we should do all we can to destablise the Middle East. Watch it burn.
Anything where is is Muslim against Muslim
is good for the West. Anything that weakens Islam is good. 100 million Muslims get slaughtered - we can rejoice tomorrow. These sons of the Devil have been screwing the West for years.

And it would not be a bad thing if we had limited Sunni versus Shia targetting Mosques in Western countries. It will make even the most rosy spectacled liberal think twice about the impossible task of integrating them in. At that point we can start thinking of expelling the scum that clings to our feet.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 12, 2007 3:54 PM

Somebody's asleep at the switches at JWatch.

This is the biggest story of the day:

Iraqi police assisted gunmen.

Sorry fella but that's old news. The police are war fighting for less pay than the Iraqi army, they may have envisaged CSI, but in many cases they got Platoon. Almagmate them into the Iraqi Army, or pay them the same. Not sure i'd be happy getting potted for less pay than my army neighbour, a snipers bullet hurts the same whatever your rank or organization.

Not that I'm saying the Iraqi police are a paragon of virtuousity. But there is a reason why some Iraqi army units are good fighters and the police are generally shite.

Posted by: The Other Mert at July 12, 2007 4:07 PM

The Sunnis comprise a minority in Iraq. Iran has a massive standing army. Look at a map for the location of Shiites in Iraq.

I don't doubt that Saudi Arabia could come to the defense of the minority Shunni in Iraq. but, then, you see, that's not a "civil war". (I suspect that this is what will cocur -- the Americans will pull out -- Iran will step in -- S. Arabia will protest -- and a regional war will erupt...that's what I suspect will occur...of course, I could be wrong.)

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 4:17 PM

If the Americans pull out of Iraq, Iran will move in. Iran will then become a super state. (I think the truth should be realized -- Americans are fighting Iran and Iranians, right now in Iraq.) The question is: do we want an enlarged and expanded Iran?

Posted by: J.S

J.S.

Iran was well on its way to becoming a super state before we ever invaded. It has Russia and China helping it develop its nuclear program (begun over a decade before anyone heard those three now-much-maligned words: axis of evil) and the US and EU powers going out of their way to avoid any confrontation over its uranium-enrichment activities.

The Iranians are not conquering Iraq. They sheltered the Shia who sought refuge from Saddam (so much for Arabs and Persians hating one another) and they are colluding with them now. Even the Sunnis were not above accepting Iranian help if it was needed to fight the great satan.

What are we gaining by staying in Iraq, except for a lighter wallet? Do the people in Iraq want to be free? Then let them prove it. We're still waiting. Right now all they care about is settling old scores. We won't accomplish anything as long as they have that mindset.

We won't be able to protect anyone from Iran if we weaken ourselves by fighting for people who don't deserve the sacrifice our young men and women are making in their behalf. The Iraqis chose to lie down with Iran. If they get bit, it's their own fault. Let them find their own serum.

Posted by: PMK at July 12, 2007 4:30 PM

"Iran was well on its way to becoming a super state before we ever invaded." Sure. but, so what?

some of the holiest shrines of Shiite Islam are located in Iraq -- all those pilgrimages we see on a yearly basis (the ones Saddam did not permit to take place)...The religious centers of Shiite Islam -- they are in Iraq. Now wouldn't the Iranian Mullahs just love that bit of religious control and expansion? Can you imagine the religious fervor and zealotry and proclamations of how they defeated "the Great Satan?" (I've read somewhere what this would mean in terms of territory, people, etc. it's not a "drop in the bucket"). having Americans defeated in "Babylon" would not "weaken" Islam.

I also don't eagerly await (or gleefully) anticipate a regional war. Even for the crudest despiser of Islam -- surely one should see how adversely this could affect the entire world, not just Muslims? (if the west were not so oil dependent, we'd be better off..). (but i don't think anything I say will alter matters...can just watch the ensuing disaster)

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 4:41 PM

Destabilizing the Middle East is NOT what we want. They'll start a major war with Israel and it won't be pretty.

C'mon, guys, don't let your zeal blind you to the fact that we have to act RATIONALLY and with some circumspection in this situation.

Posted by: atheling at July 12, 2007 4:49 PM

*covers-eyes*

*turns in place several times*

*points finger at map*

*stabs map with finger*

"The 'bad people' are here!"

*looks at map*

"Oh, Gosh! Alert the President! Toledo is funding Al Qaeda!"

---

Moral of the Story: If our Western leaders ignore the obvious, murderous enemies year in and year out and the SOURCE of the Terror, you might as well make a silly game out of the War. It will have the same result: we lose in Iraq, Iran gets nukes and eventual control of Iraqi oil, Al Qaeda gets more jihadist recruits and the Islamic world becomes an even greater threat to world peace and freedoms everywhere.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 12, 2007 4:52 PM

Another thing -- about that Karbala event in which Americans were killed. Does anyone seriously believe that the Iraqi police were corrupted (through monetary bribes) to assist the Iranians in this operation? Does ANYONE actually believe this load of ??

Go and look up "Karbala" in that Wiki site. (the Iranians convinced the Shiites to turn on the Infidel occupiers of Karbala...that is what that operation was about -- masterminded by Iranians.)

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 4:54 PM

Exactly, atheling. It's almost (almost) amusing -- to see the same pattern repeated over and over and over...and yet nobody "gets it." How do the Muslims unite?? How do they put their quarrels aside?? It's through finding a scape goat and directing their energies and hostilities against that "foe." (and here one can insert "Americans" or "Israelis." -- take your pick). That's what unifies them.

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 4:59 PM

To vacate Iraq may just be a mistake, trying to create and end-game. Did the dhimmi's pay attention to anything? If we leave we keep fighting them in Afgahnistan! They keep running and hiding in Iraq, Iran, we will be there forever!
Just like chess we must and will face them in another place!

M.Z,

SAYS WHO? What's with the DHIMMI reference? You expect anyone to respect talk like that? Why should any non-Muslim fight for people who view him with such disrespect? Dhimmi, SHMIMMI!!!!!!!!

Who exactly are we going to protect from Iran?

Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Jordan?

Let them do whatever they want in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, you name it. The people in every single one of those countries have had ample opportunity to take a stand against barbarism and what have they done but glorify it?

How about they must face us in another place? How about if they pick the wrong place they'll never face anyone again and there will be no one left to carry on the message of Islam?

The memories of Muslims cheering acts of barbarism and boasting about sawing off heads will not leave me. It makes it very difficult to care about their welfare. They don't care, so why should I? Why should anyone?

The guilt trips won't work anymore. Been there, done that. Remember this line from an old tv commercial: "we tried but we couldn't do it".

There is no shame in admitting that you were not successful. We tried. You're absolutely right it's an end game. It's time for Iraqis to face the fork in the road and decide which direction to travel. Are they going to cling to tyranny or move on a new path? So far, they've chosen the former. Well, that's their choice. We have to live with it and we do it best by saying: so long, farewell, aufwiedersehen, good-bye!!!

Posted by: PMK at July 12, 2007 4:59 PM

I-S-L-A-M

Posted by: Foehammer at July 12, 2007 5:06 PM

Ynkedoodl2 said

Somebody's asleep at the switches at JWatch. This is the biggest story of the day

That story has been covered at JW more than once.
Here is one example from back in January. We knew early on that it was an "inside job". And I agree, it is important for the American people to understand that fact, and its implications.

Posted by: special_guest at July 12, 2007 5:08 PM

J.S.
I don't doubt that Saudi Arabia could come to the defense of the minority Shunni in Iraq. but, then, you see, that's not a "civil war".

It would be to them. You see Arabs regard the the West drew the nation-state lines on the map. And it not just a case of Iran vs Saudi Arabia. It is Iran vs Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Yemen etc.

So, yes, civil war. It is Sunni versus Shia, with a substantial chunk of the Middle East as the battlefield.

And talking militarially:
Yes Iran, Syria & Hezbollah are arguably the best Armies. But they have signifcant weaknesses as well. Where is Iran going to get accessable Oil if its sole Oil terminal is knocked out on day 1? Iran also has a sizeable Sunni minority whose allegiance is questionable and presence in Oil-rich parts of Iran is a problem.
Somebody with all the military facts would best access this. To me it looks even handed.
Iran versus all the Arabian Peninsula (minus Bahrain) + North African countries looks an even war.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 12, 2007 5:09 PM

“The Sunnis comprise a minority in Iraq. Iran has a massive standing army. Look at a map for the location of Shiites in Iraq.

I don't doubt that Saudi Arabia could come to the defense of the minority Shunni in Iraq. but, then, you see, that's not a "civil war".”

But you’re not looking at what happens after Iran rolls over Iraq.

Nobody here can pretend that Iranian armour is going to get a warm reception across Iraq. In truth the Iranians will walk into the same situation we are in, only worse because they are starting from scratch. They are using our problems in Iraq to their advantage. That advantage evaporates the day they are on the streets, not us.

Imagine Iran trying to hold onto Iran after forcibly removing the US from Iraq, never mind keeping Iraq and the oil fields. They don’t have the resources to play with the big boy on a global scale.

Personally I believe an Iranian invasion of Iraq would help us no end.

Posted by: The Other Mert at July 12, 2007 5:17 PM

having Americans defeated in "Babylon" would not "weaken" Islam.

J.S.,

Of course it wouldn't. So what are we doing there? So why stay?

The Iraqi Shia have shown us that they are in complete unity with their Shiite brothers in Persia. Their sect trumps nationalism.

We will not prevent such cooperation by staying. The people who are running Iraq today had no aversion to staying in Iran when they fled Saddam. Moqtada al-Sadr had no fear of Iran. He feared American forces but Iran's elected leaders support him and the Americans will not be allowed to kill him, so what are we doing there?

Ahmadinejad is not calling for the elimination of Iraq. The people of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many other countries in the area have had more than enough chances to eschew barbarism but all they can do is consume and glorify it. The flag that flies over the city means nothing. Country? It's just a technicality to them. All that matters is living under a single caliph with Muslims at the top of the food chain.

So what if Iranians make pilgrimages to Iraqi sites? What's wrong with that? Don't you want neighbors living in peace? SO WHAT?

Necessity is the mother of invention. Give us a reason to stop using oil and we'll find other sources of power faster than you can say boo. The people of the Middle East have to make their own choices. If they want to live in barbarism that's their business. If they export it again, it will become ours. Until then, it's their bed. Let them lie in it. No one is forcing them to kill one another or to threaten people who write books or publish cartoons or bestow knighthoods. They are making those choices all by themselves. They will have to accept the consequences.

Posted by: PMK at July 12, 2007 5:22 PM

atheling:
Destabilizing the Middle East is NOT what we want. They'll start a major war with Israel and it won't be pretty.

Really?
What is the evidence for that?

1) There was the 1981-99 Iran-Iraq war.
During that time, was Israel troubled? No.

2) When the FIA was denied power illegimately in 1992 in Algeria and an internal civil war developed over many years, was Israel troubled? No.

3) There is a current war between Shia and the government within Yemen. Is Israel disturbed? No.

The only recent occasion was Gulf War 1, when
Saddam fired Scuds at Israel. But that was Saddam vesus the West.

The truth is when it is Arab versus Arab or Arab versus Persian they forget about Israel. And I would like to see 1400 million Muslims wittled down to 20 million or 0 preferably.

In the best case scenario, Isreal would have a holiday and lie low, hoping not to be remembered.
In the worse case scenario, Isreal might need to defend itself - and it has done okay in the past.

So I dont view this as zeal. I repeat - If Islam turns against itself, starts destroying itself, it is good for the West.

Helping Islam not to destroy itself is a major blunder. You do realise that Islam is a bigger enemy than Communism ever was? And it certainly will not get weaker by doing nothing?

The most ideal position for the West is if Muslim countries burn without the West causing anything. Muslims cant resent the West for what they did not cause. And on no account should we try and "solve" anything with Carter-like peace intiatives. Nor take in refugees. Tell the refugees to go sort out their own country. Let it burn.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 12, 2007 5:26 PM

Go and look up "Karbala" in that Wiki site. (the Iranians convinced the Shiites to turn on the Infidel occupiers of Karbala...that is what that operation was about -- masterminded by Iranians.)

Posted by: J.S

Exactly. And the Iraqis went along. They're in this together. We are not going to separate them by staying.

Posted by: PMK at July 12, 2007 5:30 PM

"Nobody here can pretend that Iranian armour is going to get a warm reception across Iraq."

Michael Ware of CNN reported today that major blocks in the al-Maliki government are backers of Iran -- for all intents and purposes they are Iranian. Michael Ware also noted how American politics is read by America's enemies in Iraq. Basically it goes as follows: George Bush says, "Iraqis must take care of their security problems -- step up to the plate. Do more." Iraqi Shiite politicians say: "Americans are giving arms and bullets to Sunnis to murder Shiites. Get America out of Iraq, and then we'll take care of the "security." our way." (Another possible scenario -- again, these are speculations -- the turmoil in Iraq could get so out of hand, that the Americans will be encouraged (I'm already hearing this from the Democrats) to let Iran come in (very similar to what occurred in Lebanon, during Lebanon's civil war -- there the Syrians came in as "peacemakers.")

"In truth the Iranians will walk into the same situation we are in, only worse because they are starting from scratch." I don't think so. The difference is that Americans are Infidels, the Iranians are Muslims...big, big difference. If Iran comes into Iraq -- they will not be perceived as "occupiers" but as "bringers of peace" -- Muslim style.

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 5:31 PM

"Muslims cant resent the West for what they did not cause." Now, please, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read in quite some time. Muslims (as Robert Spencer has noted) are a walking encyclopedia of "grievances" -- much of it entirely imaginary. 90 percent of Muslims' alleged "grievances" are without substance. (think of the times Americans have aided muslims -- start with Bosnia.)

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 5:37 PM

J.S.: Exactly, atheling. It's almost (almost) amusing -- to see the same pattern repeated over and over and over...and yet nobody "gets it." How do the Muslims unite?? How do they put their quarrels aside?? It's through finding a scape goat and directing their energies and hostilities against that "foe." (and here one can insert "Americans" or "Israelis." -- take your pick). That's what unifies them.

I dont disagree. I "got it" a long time ago. But now run your logic in reverse. How do we disunite Muslims? By removing the "foe" from their midst. So exit the USA and UK. The Sunni-Shia conflict has been bubbling for 1300 years, long before there was an Israel in 1948, long before the American nation existed. Right now it is pretty troubled, we have already had a dome and minarets blown off a Shia Holy mosque, Bahrain could go nova, Yemen, Iraq & Iran are simmering nicely. Even eastern Saudi Arabia.
What the West does not want to do is act as a lightening rod for militant Muslims. So lets leave. Now. We need to get them to refocus their aggression against each other.

wqe cant do anything about Israel but providing they are not popping Arabs (Palestianians) (and right now Hamas against Fatah is as good as it gets), conditions are good.

I take it you have read Muslim history? Left to their own devices it has been 1400 years of war, poision, assassination. I am hoping they rediscover that big time.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 12, 2007 5:47 PM

J.S.
"Muslims cant resent the West for what they did not cause." Now, please, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read in quite some time.

I concede. Muslims can resent anything. Even imaginary or fictional entertainments.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 12, 2007 5:48 PM

J.S. said

having Americans defeated in "Babylon" would not "weaken" Islam.

I think the terms "defeat" and "victory" are thrown around much too casually, with no clear definition of what they mean in this situation. In the jihadists' minds, our leaving Iraq constitutes "victory" for them. Does that mean that we have to stay there forever, just so the jihadists can never claim "victory"? Because I think "victory" for us should be defined in terms of our own national security; I don't give a rat's *ss what the Iraqis (and Iranians, and Saudis, etc.) do to each other. I don't care if they ululate and dance a victory jig as they did after Israel crushed them in Lebanon.

Whatever goals we set at the beginning of the war in Iraq have been achieved. There are no WMD's, Saddam is gone, they are having democratic elections, they have created their constitution, the Baathists are removed from positions of power.

Our leaving Iraq will not "weaken" Islam, true, but our staying in Iraq will not "weaken" Islam either. It WILL weaken our economy, and our national resolve to act in our own self-defense in the future.

I also don't eagerly await (or gleefully) anticipate a regional war. Even for the crudest despiser of Islam -- surely one should see how adversely this could affect the entire world, not just Muslims?

I disagree that the coming events in Iraq are in our control; that is our hubris in thinking we have control over everything that happens in the world. We don't. And I also disagree that it would be in our national self-interest to expend our money and our soldiers' lives there to try to keep the inevitable from happening, even if we could.

I'm sure one could have weeped 60 years ago at the firebombing of Dresden, or the bombing of Hiroshima, and the pain that was suffered back then. But horrible things happen in war, that is the nature of warfare. We didn't start the Sunni/Shi'ite divide any more than we started Hitler's blitzkrieg through Europe. You do what you can to avoid war, and failing that, you act in your own self defense in the most efficient way possible. And in Iraq today, that may mean getting our soldiers out of harm's way, stepping back, and letting Islamic nature take its course.

Whatever happens is Iraq will not determine the results of the jihad. Iraq is only one skirmish among many. What will determine the results of the jihad will be what we learn from Iraq, and how that knowledge shapes our future policy and strategy towards jihad and Islam.

Militarily, we did achieve "victory" in Iraq. But it is not just a military war we are in. In that sense, we have also "failed", failed to recognize the enemy, failed to identify their common goals and motivation, and failed to learn what methods would be the most fruitful against jihad (hint to GWB: most of them don't involve the military). But it is still very early.

Posted by: special_guest at July 12, 2007 5:56 PM

Sorry JS but I have to disagree. You seem to have the idea that Iraq is a US and them situation when it clearly is not.

In the north the Kurds are living the life that the rest in Iraq should be doing. The Kurds aren’t just Kurds, they are in a large part Sunni, yet there supermarkets have make up on the counters, not to mention fresh fruit and plasma TV’s. They don’t want the sectarian war invading their patch yet they are welcoming of US soldiers. They have peace because they have an identity (Kurd).

The rest of Iraq is trying to find its identity and has Michael Yon puts it so eloquently you have become the Al Ameriki tribe amongst all the other tribes fighting to define that identity.

You can walk out now and leave Iraq to Al Qaeda, therefore creating the exact same situation you would like to prevent in Iran, or you can stay and win some sort of victory.

There is a reason why Al Qaeda wants Iraq and I’m sure it won’t be to help you out.

Posted by: The Other Mert at July 12, 2007 6:08 PM

UK Infidel Lover:

You can't compare the current situation with the past. Different leaders, different climate.

Secondly, we have seen a surge of antiSemitism (antiZionism) in Europe and in America - that will embolden Iran to make good its threats. Who will stop them? Giving Iran the opportunity to step into Iraq to fill the power vacuum will NOT stop them from annihilating Israel. (BTW, please learn to spell "Israel" correctly, misspelling it serves to discredit you.)

I think we stop Iran by remaining in Iraq and work to overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with a more Western friendly regime. Recent protests in Iranian universities reflect a desire to dump Ahmadinejad because the intellectuals there realize how dangerous he is.

Withdrawing from Iraq will also prevent us from having a foothold in the ME in order to accomplish ANY action we need to undertake to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Posted by: atheling at July 12, 2007 6:16 PM

Obviously, al-Qaeda's interests are antithetical to the U.S. But by precisely the same token, Iraqi Shiites have zero interest in meeting ANY of the American "benchmarks." (Again, Michael Ware was just on CNN, the same report -- America's goals as expressed by Bush are NOT the goals of the al-Maliki government. And, as Ware also argues, Iraq is rapidly becoming a "failed state." So, what will that lead to? (I believe it will result in a strengthening of Iran -- and no, that's not "good news" for the U.S.) Furthermore, the sheer idiocy of that Baker Study Group -- "Yeah, let's talk to the Iranians!! they are our Friends. They'll solve our problems!!" THAT is precisely an US vs Them mentality -- and one in which the "Iranians" (with their nuclear ambitions) suddenly becoming America's "friends." Well, that's a load of c---p. There are no "friends" with either the Shiites or the Sunnis...not with the Arabs, not with the Persians...only Kurds (and even that is "ify")...(and I believe that the Kurdish situation is because, as Hugh points out, there's a far, far less fervent Islamic identity.)

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 6:19 PM

J.S. said
having Americans defeated in "Babylon" would not "weaken" Islam.

special_guest:
I think the terms "defeat" and "victory" are thrown around much too casually, with no clear definition of what they mean in this situation. In the jihadists' minds, our leaving Iraq constitutes "victory" for them. Does that mean that we have to stay there forever, just so the jihadists can never claim "victory"? Because I think "victory" for us should be defined in terms of our own national security; I don't give a rat's *ss what the Iraqis (and Iranians, and Saudis, etc.) do to each other. I don't care if they ululate and dance a victory jig as they did after Israel crushed them in Lebanon.

Exactly. But there is more to it than this.
For decades the Gulf nations have been sloshing with money, our money from Oil. And one of the things they spent it on is Mosques, Islamic centres, lobbying bureaux in the West designed to make Isreal look bad, Arabs look good, Islamic propaganda centres. Saudi Arabia had got its national security on the cheap. We are in the bizarre position of defending them, while they are busy spending their money on Islamic centres designed to subjugate and destroy the West. Some victory!!!

special_guest:
Whatever goals we set at the beginning of the war in Iraq have been achieved. There are no WMD's, Saddam is gone, they are having democratic elections, they have created their constitution, the Baathists are removed from positions of power.

I agree.

special_guest:
Our leaving Iraq will not "weaken" Islam, true, but our staying in Iraq will not "weaken" Islam either. It WILL weaken our economy, and our national resolve to act in our own self-defense in the future.

But if we go, Saudi Arabia now has to start spending money on its own National Security.
And I believe 2 other Sunni nations in the Gulf has said the same thing, if the USA/UK pull out.
If they all do that, that means less money being spent on Western projects, it has to.

I would be very interested to know just how far Islam would have advanced in the West if Gulf money over the past 50 years was zero.

J.S. said
I also don't eagerly await (or gleefully) anticipate a regional war. Even for the crudest despiser of Islam -- surely one should see how adversely this could affect the entire world, not just Muslims?

My anger burns coldly over the existing status quo. I resent Saudi Arabia meddling in Europe or other Western nations. And if SA are forced to spend their money on other things and no longer meddle - then yes, I eagerly await. It may mean higher Oil prices. It is no bad thing. It is about time the West diversified in terms of Energy use.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at July 12, 2007 6:20 PM

I served, he did not.feralcat9 you have my respect for serving your country. l even give a hint of respect to John Kerry, but l would not take him at his word or his advice. I dont see a problem with fighting the islamists in iraq ,afganistan. the media who we all know are whores and do not ever give an honest reporting are in bed with the democrats who hate Bush more than the islamists. If all the West would unite to fight and just even demand in one voice in the UN to condemm muslim countries for their lack of human rights, aggression against non muslims, aggression against Thailand, Israel, ect. With one voice to lead, we would take the strenght away from islmaists. But the Democrats have proven themselves no leadership against islamists, but to give them cover by allowing muslims to cry victimhood. The media and their bedfellow cohorts Democrats blame the US military when ever they can. So if this Republican senator calls his party members whimps, what ever it is his right within his party meeting, which was supposed to be a private matter, but leaked out. The RINO's are leading the country down along with the Nancy Pelosi's Democrats.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 12, 2007 6:24 PM

and I believe that the Kurdish situation is because, as Hugh points out, there's a far, far less fervent Islamic identity.)
l beg to differ on this statment, it was no too long ago of a story of a young Kurdish girl stoned to death by her Kurdish relatives because she dated some other muslim not of their liking. to me a muslim is a muslim. kurds, shites, sunnis, they are all the same, same koran, same terrorists actions.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 12, 2007 6:28 PM

"I think the terms "defeat" and "victory" are thrown around much too casually, with no clear definition of what they mean in this situation."

The Bush administration has defined victory in the following way.

From "Iraq Timeline" (March 20, 2007) by Kathy Gill:
[begin quote]
"Victory" is defined as follows:
[1]Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
[2]Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
[3]Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
[end quote]

It's obvious that these goals (although noble) are not being met. but I don't believe this is the fault of the U.S. military. it is, in a nutshell, thanks to Islam (although with a whole series of other contributory factors -- tribal feuds, destroyed infrastructure, zero history of civil governance, illiteracy, history of corruption and nepotism, etc., etc.)

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 7:11 PM

The Other Mert said

You can walk out now and leave Iraq to Al Qaeda, therefore creating the exact same situation you would like to prevent in Iran, or you can stay and win some sort of victory.

What is "some sort of victory", and what do we have to do to win it? Is it "victory" to put a semi-pro-Western government in charge of people who don't agree with it, and who describe it as "collaborators"? Is "victory" achieved when the Iraqi people give up Islam, and begin living their lives according to our values? Or something else?

And why does it say "prevent in Iran"? Iran already has a sharia-compliant theocracy (free of Sunni Al Qaeda, by the way). They've had it for decades. We can't prevent what has already happened.

What we want to prevent is the Iranians (and Iraqis and Saudis and Syrians etc.) from getting nuclear weapons. That should be how we define "victory". Not whether Iraqis and Iranians and Saudis hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but whether they have weapons and the means to deliver them to us. And we don't need to station tens of thousands of our troops permanently in each of the Middle Eastern nations to prevent that.

Al Qaeda isn't just, or even mainly, located in Iraq. And Al Qaeda is not the only, or even the main, violent jihad group in the world. And violent jihad is not the only, or even the main, method of achieving Islamic goals. This myopic focusing on Al Qaeda in Iraq is most bizarre, and in the case of the Bush Administration, approaches the level of a dangerous fetish.

Posted by: special_guest at July 12, 2007 7:19 PM

atheling - "feralcat9:
Sorry, but it's not fair. You can't make a judgment on a person's PHYSICAL disability unless you've examined him or have a doctor's certification.
However, you CAN judge a person's "wimpability" (new word!) based on his actions and words.
Apples and oranges."

My judgment on Boehner most certainly is fair. I did not serve in the U.S. Army Field Artillery, going through Basic, AIT and OCS and serving in RVN, to be called a whimp because I think that "we" should get out of Iraqi Islamic "nation building" by some blow hard who was discharged from the Navy after only 8 weeks.

Even if he actually did have a bad back he did not serve, and let be be blunt here, he is a chickenhawk.

He calls me a whimp and I will call him anything that I want.

BTW, a "bad back" was one of the main ways that people got out of the military.

Boehner should remember that old adage about people who live in glass house, with or without a bad window, should not throw stones.

./take-no-prisoners mode off

Posted by: feralcat9 at July 12, 2007 7:47 PM

But J.S., those are just a list of the things that we want the Iraqis to do. We want them to be peaceful, united, and stable, and we want them to fight terrorism. Great, those would all be nice. But they're out of our control. How can we define our "victory" or "failure" purely in terms of what the Iraqis decide to do? And yet that is exactly what we have done. We have put the Iraqi people in charge of deciding our "victory" or "failure". That may not have been a brilliant strategy, in hindsight.

Posted by: special_guest at July 12, 2007 7:48 PM

PMK - "What are we gaining by staying in Iraq, except for a lighter wallet?"

Well we are "gaining" a "lighter" Army too.

A hundred guys are being killed a month and probably at least that many more permanently disabled, and not just with a "bad back" either.

The U.S. Army is becoming more and more demoralized and also missed it's recruitment quotas for the last two months.

Thank you Jorge "ROP" Arbusto.

Posted by: feralcat9 at July 12, 2007 8:01 PM

special_guest - But J.S., those are just a list of the things that we want the Iraqis to do. We want them to be peaceful, united, and stable, and we want them to fight terrorism."

I would also like to be able to fly like Superman.

That is probably more likely to happen.

Posted by: feralcat9 at July 12, 2007 8:04 PM

feralcat9, exactly. It sounds more like a 4-year old's Christmas wish list ("...and I want a pony, and ...") than a coherent policy for U.S. troops to follow and to be judged by. The troops did every thing we asked of them: got rid of Saddam, destroyed the Iraqi Guard, rebuilt the Iraqi infrastructure several times, and so on. The Iraqis have met Z-E-R-O of their benchmarks. So now we failed. Right.

Posted by: special_guest at July 12, 2007 8:15 PM

feralcat9:

Well, I won't prohibit your free speech, but I pointed out that your logic is flawed.

Posted by: atheling at July 12, 2007 8:38 PM

I have never been a proponent for the "democracy" project in Iraq. I also recall that when Daniel Pipes suggested that a pro-Western strongman be put in place in Iraq -- he was roundly condemned. I also recall a writer for the Jerusalem Post noting that he was not seeing any evidence of any Perestroika in Iraq (ie, any evidence of the people calling out for "freedom and democracy.") But this is all old, old "news" -- it's like a merry-go-round to be re-hashed endlessly.

I suspect that the Democrats will have their way -- there will be a pull-out of Iraq -- Iran will take over. but this will not, and should not, cause mass "celebrations" (except, of course, if you happen to be anti-American.)

I would also agree that the Democrats' one-eyed fixation on al-Qaeda (in Afghanistan) is ludicrous. (CNN reported today on an Intel Report that al-Qaeda operatives are on their way into the United States. And, "no" they're not arriving from a Middle Eastern Country -- their probable origins could just as easily be from the UK (or for that matter, from Canada.) The days in which one could confidently predict that "if you close off the entrance to the States from Middle Eastern countries, then we'll be 'safe'" -- those days are over. Let's not forget the 2 million Muslims in the UK, etc., many of whom have been radicalized (thanks to the Multi-culti appeasement policies of Europe and elsewhere).

Posted by: J.S. at July 12, 2007 8:59 PM

Iraqis take cover from American-made bombs to no avail.
American-made weapons used agianst Palestinians by the Judeo-Nazi state for decades.
Iranian-made weapkns, big deal, get some balls and stop whining.

Posted by: progressive at July 12, 2007 10:34 PM

'Progressive' yeast infections are common in Pakistan...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 12, 2007 11:00 PM

Send them back to Iran.If you know what i mean?

Posted by: Dar al-harb at July 12, 2007 11:01 PM

Last I heard those weapons into Israel came from Iran!
Even if you make one typing error Afgahnistan people do not let you slide for hudda! Says who? PMK, I guess I did! You don't have to respect it or nothing! Maybe the Koran! The knowledge of it!
Protect who from Iran- gee I dunt know! Ghost War!

Posted by: MZ at July 12, 2007 11:15 PM

by Special Guest:

"This myopic focusing on Al Qaeda in Iraq is most bizarre, and in the case of the Bush Administration, approaches the level of a dangerous fetish."

The MSM are the biggest offenders here. ANY incident around the world involving islamic jihad violence gets connected to Al Qaeda.

Using AQ as the accused in every incident make the story easier to convey and prevents discussion and understnading of the jihadist motivations.

GWB has said repeatedly that the reason they attack us is becuase they hate our freedom and our way of living. The media, and fellow conservatives take that as an end all answer and explanation and stops right there. That they hate our freedom doesn't tell us why they hate us. Is does not explain what makes a human being think he can take the lives of unlimited numbers of innocent humans under guise of a "religion". To question Islam, a believed religion, forces one to analyze why a religion could preach to its followers that killing non-believers is a dutiful act. And that takes time and study. It is easier when our president and the MSM gives us the answer in sound bites.

I have started to make a list of all the variuos islamic jihad groups and some of the violence committed by each. When my list is complete I will use it to point it to Al Qaeda is but a fish in a sea murderous violent jihadists bent on world domination.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at July 12, 2007 11:41 PM

After researching the net for Jehweh and I did not come up with anything but the Sunni's and Shias use that word spelled Yehweh. The Shias are the stronger for they are to be believed to have the right path. Anyways while searching I seen lots of sites with both sides. I came across this site and I would go there for awhile. I liked the fact I could go there and really ***ch about the islamist! I love the fact this guy feels so strong about what is happening to his country he is sticking his,,well, he is I see as a true Patriot! Other people would say extremist! Why, I say? Patriot! He though is caught in another world other than of mine for he is surrounded by illegaly immigrants! He is also considered outlawed by his own govenment for stating his view! He knows his facts about Islam I can tell ya that. He is the one who suggested Roberts book to me. We were studying it on line. He is smart. VP! So PMK I am against Islamist. Check out this site. Enjoy! I like it. http://www.vpcenter.org/ if that takes ya there. Go to #1 if it is a list. VP. There is alot of info on there. Very good! Extreme what the hay! It is the truth! VP or Victory Policy! Take care ya all.

Posted by: MZ at July 13, 2007 2:39 AM

"Iraqis take cover from American-made bombs to no avail."
Posted by: progressive

....in case you have failed to notice, the Iraqis are dying every day from explosives brought in by Iranian Muslims, delivered to other Muslims in Iraq, to be used against Muslims in Iraq.....It is hard to take cover from your own people, you know, the Muslims who look like you, dress like you, live in your neighborhoods, share your food and who will kill you just to prove they are fighting for you....

Islam is for losers...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 13, 2007 7:29 AM

atheling

Well, I won't prohibit your free speech, but I pointed out that your logic is flawed.

You won't prohibit my free speech?

That seems to imply that you would if you good.

You should look inward and examine yourself.

Logic flaw?

1 + 1 = 2 - check
1 + 1 = 2 - recheck

No logic flaw here.

Posted by: feralcat9 at July 14, 2007 1:15 AM