Yep...they're getting ever more desperate since they got their asses kicked...and being shunned just for being themselves.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 16, 2007 1:19 AM

"We as tribesmen will act against the al-Qaida, and those standing behind it who do not want us to put an end to it,'' Ali Hatem al-Suleiman said.

Somebody tell us how much this cost. And then tell us that organized crime is illegal.

Posted by: pez at September 16, 2007 1:50 AM

One has to ask, why is force the necessary glue to maintain order in Islamic societies?
Doesn't Islam have all the answers and obedience to Allah is all one needs?
Isn't force and punishment the real necessary core of Sharia law?
Doesn't Islam actually supress and stifle personal development and self actualization of your "better self" which might lead to social behavior consistant with socially valuable ideals?
Isn't submission to the will of Allah acknowledgment of your powerless being, that you can never have it "your way", that cooperation and trust, two requirements for civil government, are merely methods of deception and manipulation so that someone else can fullfill their power fantasies at your expense? Perhaps even your death? Because force is the only real commodity in the Islamic world that lets you think, and believe, that you might have some purpose in life, especialy if you act in the name of Allah?
This is psychological derangement initiated by Mohammed and perpetuated by it's victims.
It's multi-generational and contageous by force. It means the death of spirit and soul.

Posted by: crusader rabbit at September 16, 2007 3:56 AM

Here in la la land Bellevue and Kirkland WA will be dined by CAIR! Ugh!

We best be getting ready while they continue to condition the loons even more with venom!

btw: "Loved that video on the last thread comment section!"

Posted by: dcat at September 16, 2007 3:56 AM

Force is invariably the key:
Truth told simply and effectively.Saddam was a vital force that kept the iraqi jihadists and iranian mullahs in check.Had the morons of bush administration knew this they would not have toppled saddam and unleashed the jihadists.

Posted by: logicalthinker at September 16, 2007 4:41 AM

*ahem*

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403260858.asp

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/11/154020.shtml

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={200ACE51-6E35-49B1-A8EA-74A441DE4370}

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Sunni%20Islamist%20Websites%20in%20Iraq.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48343

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56020

truth told simply and effectively.
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at September 16, 2007 5:25 AM

If we'd just sieze those vast oil fields, we'd be doing something feasible and strategically rational. And it wouldn't depend on the locals.
The flaw in our current approach is that it depends on the Iraqi people way too much. We can't count on them to be civilized. Islam eliminated that possibility centuries ago.
I'm afraid that ultimately that oil wealth will just accrue to our mortal enemies.

Posted by: jewdog at September 16, 2007 5:44 AM

Now THAT's true,ya said it all...kudos jewdog ^5s

Posted by: jcom972 at September 16, 2007 5:53 AM

"In an Islamic context, there are exactly two kinds of regimes possible: Islamic tyrannies and non-Islamic tyrannies."

An excellent summation. Didn't Ayatollah Khomeini say just about the same thing?

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at September 16, 2007 6:23 AM

Re: Sunni Leaders in Iraq Threatened

Same old, same old.

--------------------------

Off topic: Yesterday I got a post deleted. The post was meant as a joke. It was a sarcastic reference to the contract put on the life of the Swedish cartoonist by a belief-system adherent in Iraq.

As I reflected on the deletion I realized Robert (or whoever) was right to delete the post. Imagine what it must be like to have to constantly be on guard against people (Fibrahim Hooper, e.g.) who will deliberately distort intention and lie to harm others (Robert, etc.), to be on guard against people who fear those who tell the truth re Jihad and its deep roots in Muslim doctrine.

Such people want silence on the overwhelming evidence re Jihad and the supremacist nature of Islam, as well as its mandates to deception, and they will use propaganda and propaganda words (islamophobia, e.g.) or play "victim" (as Goebbels recommended) to create a mind-set among "the stupid masses" which conditions believers to a blind belief in "the justice of their cause", which permits the believers to attack critics with a "clean conscience", even to the point of doing them physical harm-or worse. Goebbels emphasised (as in the Sudetenland crisis of 1938) the need to be viewed as a "victim".

Such a mind is alien to the way I think, but it is wisdom to be guarded against the malice of such people who will use anything to deceive via lies, slander, distortions, propaganda. It's reality. My post had to be deleted.

Posted by: Frank at September 16, 2007 7:25 AM

"Turkey continually oscillates between full-blown Sharia and military dictatorship."
-- from the article above

This is not true. The history of modern Turkey does not show it ever to have been forced to endure "full-blown Shari'a." It would be more accurate to say that Kemal Ataturk was a despot, but an enlightened despot. He systematically constrained Islam. He helped to make possible the development of a secular class, but that same secular class, the class of intended beneficiaries of Ataturk's measures collectively known as "Kemalism," were insufficiently wary of Islam, or insufficiently grateful for what Kemalism had done for them, or both, to continue to push for ever more constraints. Nor did they push to expand their numbers as vigorously as they might have. They behaved, in fact, as Turkey's geopolitical ally the United States behaved during the Cold War, with both the secular Turks and the American government assuming that Kemalism was there to stay, and would continue to inexorably transform Turkey.

What turned out to be permanent, and a permanent threat to Turkey's dominant secular class who controlled not just the army, but the universities and the judicial system, was not Kemalism, which needed to be constantly protected, but Islam. Islam is the force that keeps coming back, that cannot be kept down, like Rasputin.

And those who fill Western newspapers with contented reports on how the Islam in Turkey is so much better, so much in tune with the modern world (why, just look at those places, say Konya, where Islam and economic activity (it's always about some bustling textile or candy factory) do not know, cannot know, what Turkish secularists now know.

In the past, it was the army that was seen as the protector of Kemalism, and several times the army seized power, but most temporarily, in order to re-establish a system threatened by Islam. It would be harder now, for Erdogan, following Erbakan, have been whittling away at the pillars of Kemalism -- in the war on the Turkish rectors, and even, one suspects, infiltrating their own men, who are well-versed in the need for deception and for patience, into the army, perhaps even into the lower ranks of the officer corps.

Turkey does not "continually oscillate..." It has had, since the early 1920s, a system that has constrained Islam. For nearly half-a-century that system, put in place by a war hero and enlightened despot, continued, though his successors -- Inonu, Menderes -- added their own twists to, or turns away from Ataturk, who in the meantime, after his death, became the central figure in the cult of "the Turk" which was offreed as an alternative to Islam, with Ataturk substitute, as a human form divine, for Muhammad.

Posted by: Hugh at September 16, 2007 9:18 AM

According to this story:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-16-iraq-arrest_N.htm

The vermin that killed sheik Risha last week was just located and arrested.

I say again "arrested".

Was he read his rights? Will he demand and get a speedy trial? Will he get his 3 squares a day, new prayer rug, new Koran and state financed attorney? Will he get conjugal visitation rights for his 10 year old bride?

This is madness. Our own Christian-Judeo values and legal traditions will be the death of us all.

The shiek was blown to pieces by an IED and his killer was "arrested".

I thought this was a war, not a police action.

Posted by: USorThem at September 16, 2007 9:22 AM

>Turkey is as secular as it is thanks to Gemal's outright repression of Islam.

Shouldn't that be Kemal? (Ataturk)

Btw I've been reading JW for a couple of weeks. You guys are doing a terrific job!

Posted by: zaphodbrx at September 16, 2007 10:49 AM

I spend a lot of time on another discussion board, where it is the same majority of posters heaping scorn on Bush and the Iraq war, also tossing insults of ignorance and Islamophobia towards people who raise concerns about the Jihad ideology in Islam. Whenever the war gets bad press, (like 24/7) they go ecstatic, and feel justified in all their views, notably how right they are that Islam is harmless and Islamophobes are the problem.

It's pretty disorienting, to say the least, to come here and see the war being mocked at my favorite source of anti-Jihad information.

I kind of thought that the Iraq war was part of an effort to 'drain the swamp' that breeds terrorism, by improving conditions for people in the ME away from brutal dictators and towards western-style freedom. I only have known a couple of people from Iraq but they seemed as normal as you and me. One of them in particular was a really good guy and totally reliable, as best as I could tell at the time. I don't know why we should assume that they like to live under dictators...

But I'm just here to learn, after all.

Posted by: Goob at September 16, 2007 10:59 AM

Humans are all alike: even Muslims, benighted from birth, will eventually tire of the psychopaths who adhere to Islam in its every stipulation, thereby soaking the lives of all around them in horror and misery.

In point of fact, the Sunnis of Anbar finally had enough of their children being baked in ovens and beheaded, of chlorine bombs shattering bodies in the souks and of their daughters being forced to marry Al Qaeda emirs (read: devout marginals from Cairo, Damascus and Riyadh) foisted on them by their Arab cousins like garbage thrown in the street.

The Anbaris know the score. They despise the takfiris the way we loathe the jihadists. They know the Arab world is willing, for sheer pride, to throw them to bin Laden's wolves.

When they finally realized the cruel hell Al Qaeda had in store for them, the tribes of Anbar blinked, looked around, and who was still there, standing in the dust and the muck and the trash smoke, hand extended?

The Americans.

In Iraq, America and a few weathered allies are trying to hand Arab Muslims something other than their perennial menu of secular dictatorship or sharia prison.

No matter what, this will be a Long War for the West. Immigration, academic freedom, human rights over sharia, energy sourcing, and the nature of religious freedom will all factor prominently, and much more so than Iraq or Afghanistan. If we win, the Arab world will be in miserable shape, isolated and destitute.

If we prevail, history will record that before the West truly joined the fight, it was the Americans who tried mightily--and maybe succeeded--to offer Ishmael something different.

Islam is certainly the problem we face, but it does not do to sneer at the tribes of Anbar.

Posted by: counterjihadi at September 16, 2007 11:43 AM

"I kind of thought that the Iraq war was part of an effort to 'drain the swamp' that breeds terrorism, by improving conditions for people in the ME away from brutal dictators and towards western-style freedom. I only have known a couple of people from Iraq but they seemed as normal as you and me. One of them in particular was a really good guy and totally reliable, as best as I could tell at the time. I don't know why we should assume that they like to live under dictators..."
Posted by: Goob

I tend to believe that their culture, as it is, demands a forceful leader.
In their tribalistic mindset they only respect overwhelming force.

The Iraqi government is a "coalition" which will never work.
Too many in charge, and each of them want to be the "King".
The do not govern, they bicker among themselves.
They do not understand western style democracy, it is an alien concept.
Islam will not allow to change that.
Islamic goverments are ruthless tyrants for a reason. If the population is an undisciplined mob, then only force and draconian punishment works.

Posted by: pr126 at September 16, 2007 12:13 PM

"One of [the Iraqis the poster met] in particular was a really good guy and totally reliable, as best as I could tell at the time."
-- from a posting above

So what? You met this or that nice Iraqi. It has happened to me, and to many of us. It certainly happened all over official Washington, where such "nice Iraqis" as Ahmad Chalabi and Rend al-Rahim Francke and Kanan Makiya (who not only wrote a book about the mass murder of the Kurds, but thinks that Iraq should not be called an "Arab state"), managed to persuade many -- Bush needed no persuasion -- that an American invasion and overturning of Saddam Hussein would be greeted as a "liberation" and the "liberators" treated presumably as heroes by a grateful populace.

Too many people substitute their own encounter with this or that pleasant Muslim colleague, for an encounter with Islam itself. Too many people are prepared to think that the nice Pakistani who always inquires after your children, who is soft-spoken and never as gratingly self-absorbed as your other, American colleagues, who would love to have you over for dinner to show you the "real face of Islam," and who is quite sure that you have been "misinformed" about this "peaceful" religion, but who whenever you even come close to discussing something -- say, his attitude toward apostates, or toward the right of Israel to exist, or his own indifference to his own civilizational history outside of, or before, Islam -- manages to skitter away.

The attitude that "I know this one guy" or "I met a really reliable Iraqi officer in Mosul" or.. well, fill it in. There is the Gunga-Din problem, the sentimentalism of those who focus on the one or two, or even a dozen, genuinely trustworthy and loyal Iraqis they met, and do not focus on the millions who are quite unlike that.

It is Islam that mandates a state of permanent war -- though not always open warfare when Muslmis are too weak or can obtain the same goals more effectively through other instruments -- between Believers and Infidels. In such a war, as in all wars, one does not make policy based on the exceptions, rather than the rule. One did not soften the blows against Nazi Germany because there was the White Rose resistance of the Scholls, or because there was here and there an Oskar Schindler. One did not change policy toward the Soviet Union because within that Soviet Union there were such people as Andrey Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrey Amalric, because it was the Soviet state, the Red Army, the Communist Party, that counted.

It is the same in dealing with Iraq or any other Muslim entity. Not the exceptions, but the primitive masses, endlessly re-primitivized by Islam's texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics, that should serve as the basis of policy.

Not some smiling Western-educated Arab diplomats, not even the plummy Prince Hassan of Jordan, or the gravelly-voiced former Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki or the smiling operator and fixer and distributor of goodies, Prince Bandar, should be allowed to mislead any longer. Look at what is preached in the mosques and what is in the textbooks, and what is in the press, on the radio, and television, of this or that Muslim state. That, and not the "nice guy" someone met, even if that "someone" should be Colin Powell (with his tennis-partner Prince Bandar, who gave Powell's wife a Jaguar as a token of his affection and esteem), should be kept firmly and unsentimentally in mind.

Posted by: Hugh at September 16, 2007 12:21 PM

That Jaguar seems to have bought an awful lot of goodwill. Powell: Terrorists are not the greatest threat to the nation.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/colin-powell-te.html

It's immigration, silly. Or rather, it's the possibility that the "Vacancy for All; No Comers Turned Away" sign at the border might be taken down. I'm beginning to wonder whether there's anyone in the upper levels of power who knows what's going on. John Bolton seemed to, at least as far as N. Korea was concerned, but bush threw him under the bus rather than risk a difficult confirmation hearing. Makes me wonder whether Bolton was getting a little too outspoken about the islamic threat during meetings with the president.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at September 16, 2007 3:19 PM

Goob

"It's pretty disorienting, to say the least, to come here and see the war being mocked at my favorite source of anti-Jihad information."

What did you expect? This is not the site for Bush apologetics or Liberal apologetics but for truth. The truth is Iraq has failed because nobody in the Bush camp of the Republican party wants to accept that Islam is the source of the problem in Iraq and not dictators. As William Eaton in 1799 wrote upon seeing Tunis and Islam stated...

"They are abject slaves to the despotism of their
government, and they are humiliated by tyranny,
the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of
priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the
frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten
above a thousand years, than of the living despot
whose frown would cost them their lives."

So what that Saddam is gone. The true dictator lives on. He preaches in every mosque and in every home in Islamic lands. His book the Quran and his system of Islamic government lives on.

We invaded Iraq because it was a hostile nation and removed the living despot and when we leave it will still be a hostile nation ruled by a dead despot and one which will be much harder to remove.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at September 16, 2007 5:50 PM

Goob

"I kind of thought that the Iraq war was part of an effort to 'drain the swamp' that breeds terrorism, by improving conditions for people in the ME away from brutal dictators and towards western-style freedom."

In other words unless you remove that dead dictator named Muhammad how can you have western-style freedom?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at September 16, 2007 6:01 PM

One of the many chuckles in this huge fiasco that's commonly called "Iraqi Freedom" is that, under Saddam, The MB and hardline Shiites were just way too scared. They simply didn't factor into anything.

Now of course, they're the big players.

Way to go. Way to go.

Posted by: ewha1 at September 17, 2007 3:55 AM