| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"Stepping into the void left as Sunni insurgents have been dislodged..."
"Shi'ite militiamen blamed in attacks on U.S. troops," by Kim Gamel for the Associated Press:
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Shi'ite militiamen with Iranian weapons and training launched nearly three-quarters of the attacks that killed or wounded U.S. forces last month in Baghdad, stepping into the void left as Sunni insurgents have been dislodged, a top U.S. commander said Sunday.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno didn't provide a total number of militia attacks. But he said 73% of the attacks that wounded or killed U.S. troops last month in Baghdad were launched by Shi'ite militiamen, nearly double the figure six months earlier.
Iran has denied U.S. allegations that it is fueling the violence in Iraq, and the Americans and the Iranians have agreed to set up a committee to deal with Iraqi security issues.
Setting up a committee and having the committee actually do something are not the same thing.
Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to pull his Mahdi Army fighters off the streets as the security crackdown began Feb. 12. But some members of his group broke away.
That doesn't even begin to exonerate al-Sadr, to say nothing of addressing the Iranian connection.
Posted by Marisol at August 6, 2007 11:30 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Americans and the Iranians have agreed to set up a committee to deal with Iraqi security issues.
Would General Patton do the same during WW2? l dont think so! need to fight this war to win! need to do a Dresden on iranian nuke sites and military sites!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 6, 2007 11:46 AM
The minority Sunnis lost power with the removal of Saddam. Shiites rule the roost. If the Shiites would play the game as Mo would, they would temporarily cooperate with the US, help create a what appears to Westerners a stable Iraq. The apparent cooperation and apparent stability would hasten the US exit. However, I assume their ingrained blood lust prevents them from creating this pseudo-cooperation. All they know is killing. They are blinded by the blood.
Under this scenario, when the US military is eventually reduced to just a token force, the Iraqis and Iranians can announce their alliance.
at August 6, 2007 11:47 AM
Its amazing to me that al-Sadr is allowed to scurry about his normal daily activities while the country is in complete pandemonium.
Am I missing something or is this guy a known militant who engages in fighting against the U.S. forces there?
Screw politics man. I don't care if the president likes the guy he needs to be eliminated. I just don't understand how the military can sit by and let that happen.
Posted by: v4ri4bl3 at August 6, 2007 11:49 AM
Why, I'm confused.
Didn't Chalabi tell the administration that they'd welcome us with open arms?
They administration is getting played by both sides....the sunnis led by the saudis seem to have gotten the administration's attention and now it is the iranians/shiites turn to wreak havoc on the troops. Unbelievable.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at August 6, 2007 12:04 PM
So, who was the genius that made the decision not to whack al sadr?
Whoever he was - hes doing a heck of a job.
Posted by: infidel! at August 6, 2007 12:08 PM
Okay, but who's killing people in markets? Are the Iraqi Shiites, aided by Iran, also killing their own people, just to incite distrust?
The roadside bombs in Baghdad go off in Shiite neighborhoods.
Another story on JW tells of a truck bomb that went off in a Shiite section of Tal Afar in northern Iraq. Nineteen children were among the dead. The hospital was already filled to capacity (from prior bombs?) and people were sent to other hospitals almost an hour away for treatment.
Is al-Sadr killing his own, or is this a simple case of tribal warfare?
Once again it's "ROGUE" militiamen.
Posted by: PMK at August 6, 2007 12:20 PM
Just file this report in the "No S#@!" category.
Posted by: Foehammer at August 6, 2007 12:25 PM
Hey, are you gonna believe your lying eyes
or your President George Almighty?
at August 6, 2007 12:28 PM
Ok Mahmoud,
You and your gangster pals yet again deny everything.
Every media report on every subject regarding your criminality has you denying any accusation whatsoever.
Ok,so who do you think is arming and training shia terrorists if it isn't you?
Pray tell...
at August 6, 2007 12:41 PM
Let me go out on a branch here.. Who is doing the vast majority of killing in Iraq?
muslims. Full stop.
Posted by: infidel! at August 6, 2007 12:50 PM
OK, General Odierno, 73% of the attacks involved weapons from Iran.
But what percentage of ‘terrorists’ killed in combat are carrying AK-47s with serial numbers traceable to arms transfers from the US? Do you bother to check?
Posted by: pez at August 6, 2007 1:03 PM
OK, General Odierno, 73% of the attacks involved weapons from Iran.
But what percentage of ‘terrorists’ killed in Iraq are carrying AK-47s with serial numbers traceable to arms transfers from the US? Do you bother to check and, if not, why not?
Posted by: pez at August 6, 2007 1:07 PM
Listening to the braying coming out of the Shi'ite Iraqi camp the past few weeks, and listening to the U.S. military leaders talking of "working with" the Sunni militias, it is clear that Bush, with his "serfistercated" understanding of Islam, has decided that the problem of Iraq was not the Bad Guy Sunnis (under Saddam) enslaving the Good Guy Shi'ites. Nope, now he "figgered out" it was the Bad Guy Shi'ites under the control of the Evil Iranians killing the Good Guy Sunnis.
When will he get that neither Shi'ites nor Sunnis are our allies, neither one shares our goals of a peaceful democratic pluralistic society in Iraq? When will he get that both sides are harming our country, by killing our soldiers, draining our treasury, and sapping our national resolve to confront the real jihad, which is based in Riyadh and Islamabad and Tehran, not Baghdad?
Posted by: special_guest at August 6, 2007 1:08 PM
Never has the foreign policy of The United States been a bigger ball of mass confusion. Let this be a cautionary tale about what happens when we ASSUME that any idiot, even a real retard like George Almighty Bush, can run the executive branch of USA, Inc.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at August 6, 2007 1:16 PM
"73% of the attacks that wounded or killed U.S. troops last month in Baghdad were launched by Shi'ite militiamen, nearly double the figure six months earlier."
-- from the article above
This should surprise no one. The Shi'a have received, or taken, a great many weapons from the Americans, and training, and have learned to fight, and gained experience, as members of the "Iraqi" police and the "Iraqi" army, that make the Americans less immediately useful. Besides, the American effort to win over Sunni tribes in Anbar must disturb the Shi'a, showing them that the Americans really mean it about bringing the Sunnis "back into the fold" when the Shi'a have no intention of doing so.
And meanwhile, the Sunnis -- not those who are convinced they will win once the Americans leave, but those that fear they will not (once the Americans leave) -- here and there, will no doubt be better-disposed toward their Infidel enemy/temporary protector.
In neither case should the slighest sentimentality cause wavering. Nor should anyone making American policy, policy that will make our American and Infidel lives better off, more secure, by weakening the Camp of Islam, be swayed by any such appeals of the "we-just-can't-leave-them" variety, or "don't-we-owe-it-to-the-Iraqis-to-stay" or "we-broke-it-we-fix-it" nonsense of the tom-friedmanesque school of contempoary kindergarten thought.
Leave, for god's sake. Let them fight. Or not. It hardly matters. Just leave, and let whatever happens to Sunni and Shi'a, which one hopes will involve not only fighting, but a using up of men, money, and materiel from co-religionists outside of Iraq, be observed from a safe distance.
at August 6, 2007 1:27 PM
Iran's days are numbered.
"Let this be a cautionary tale about what happens when we ASSUME that any idiot, even a real retard like George Almighty Bush, can run the executive branch of USA, Inc.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 "
Yes and unfortunately, there aren't any replacements worth a crap either. They're all corrupt, corporate puppets who never think to put the American people first.
The only really important reason for running for President? Power, money and the potential earnings from giving crap speeches after they leave office.
Posted by: The Goobs at August 6, 2007 4:07 PM
Yea another committee to throw the tired and worn out phrase "we condemn these actions" around.BIG DEAL
It's funny yesterday i read an article that at least 80% of attacks on the U.S. were Sunni now it's 70% are shiite.
Lets just say 150% of attacks on the west are muslims following Islam.
Enemy is well defined and known.
Now what would men do about it?
Posted by: Dar al-harb at August 6, 2007 4:50 PM
I am concerned that some of those Amercians killed were killed with weapons intended for the good guys, but the bad guys got a hold of them and with the White House pushing for more arms proliferation the future is bleak.
Posted by: Orion'zZzRizing at August 6, 2007 6:46 PM
Close the border with Iran. Use those remote controlled planes with armament to police illegal traffic and bomb it. This shit of allowing free traffic into Iraq has to stop. Our soldiers deserve better than they have been getting. Close the Saudi border, too. Same with planes and bombs.
Posted by: Hebrew Handyman at August 6, 2007 8:40 PM
I believe that these attacks are a rehersal for I believe that these attacks are training for if and when we invade Iran. If that event happens, the terrorists will have the training needed to attack our troops.
Posted by: Christian at August 6, 2007 9:59 PM
Orion'zZzRizing said
I am concerned that some of those Amercians killed were killed with weapons intended for the good guys, but the bad guys got a hold of them
There is a huge assumption underlying that statement. It is an assumption that begs for evidence of its veracity.
Posted by: special_guest at August 6, 2007 11:09 PM
I just read, that 190'000 machine guns from the US stock went missing in Iraq. With such in ineptitude who needs Iran?
Posted by: Swissy at August 7, 2007 2:08 AM
eve_anne_gelicalthe administration is getting played by both sides
The whole of "Iraqi Freedom" explained in a nutshell.
ChristianI believe that these attacks are a rehersal for I believe that these attacks are training for if and when we invade Iran."
I'm sure you're right. The Iranian are slowly, carefully bleeding us. It's win win for them.
Ynkedoodl2Never has the foreign policy of The United States been a bigger ball of mass confusion. Let this be a cautionary tale about what happens when we ASSUME that any idiot, even a real retard like George Almighty Bush, can run the executive branch of USA, Inc.
And the galling tragedy of it all is that the US doesn't really need a genuis at the top. Like the British Empire in it's heyday all it needs is someone who
a) throws out all ideological baggage when being sworn in. Be practical not ideological. Nixon was a prime example. He was a right wing ideologue but once in office you'd never have guessed it.
b) puts the US first. Copy Switzerland. It may sound selfish but it isn't in reality. After all, who hates Switzerland? Countries like Serbia, Israel, Ethopia, India, south Sudanese etc will be given "ally" status because they'll be helping the US. The US is not a charity. Keep out of nearly all fights and only get involved if you really really really really understand what's going on. Really understand.
c) has a modicum of intelligence. The efficient US system will happily run on auto pilot with an average Joe at the controls.
There. Even I qualify. Except I'm not an American. Spongebob Square pants qualifies but Dubya and Billy Boy Clinton don't
President SpongeBob. Has a certain ring to it doesn't it.
at August 7, 2007 4:37 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)