In addition to this outrage, we have a situation where the Iraqi government is an Iranian ally, being dominated by Shiites. That means that toppling Saddam Hussein could lead, ultimately, to an even worse strategic balance in the region.
There just is no way to have a peaceful, friendly Iraqi government without undergoing an initial de-Islamization process, just as German reform after WWII required de-Nazification. Skip that and it's just not worth the effort to reform that country.

Posted by: jewdog at January 5, 2008 9:48 AM

This attack from within, friendly fire happened December 25 th according to ABCradio news this morning.
The spin and coverup by our media and our government keeps the sheep fixated on delusion and Brittany Spears.
The truth is that President Bush /the US has raised up with many billions of US dollard the Islamic Republic of Iraq,replacing the secular Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein with a radical Islamic state in line with the aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Who would have thunk that a U.S. president would be so useful to the cause of Islam especially one dressed in the garb of 'christian,conservative,Republican,sincere,
honest, hard working, loyal great leader of the free world.
The devil and his wolf have outfoxed even the most wise of men having used a shmuck from Texas to do it.
He now offers up Israel to his Moslem cohort's with a sheepish grin.

Posted by: rocketman at January 5, 2008 10:01 AM

RE "This kind of incident is completely inexplicable according to the established paradigms. Here was an Iraqi who was being "empowered." Who had been shown the good will of the Americans, who no doubt trained his unit and bankroll its existence, in innumerable ways".

It is a strange aspect of human nature that people who are treated kindly often resent the kindness. "No good deed goes unpunished". The truth is that Muslims feel oppressed when they are not dominant and sneering at Kuffirs.

In The Prince, Machiavelli makes the point that it is better to be feared than loved, though he strongly advises that one must avoid being hated and the best way to do that is by not messing with the property of others or hitting on other mens' wives. However, Machiavelli was right in his analysis of human nature. It is basically amoral and human nature rationalizes exploitation (usually with ideology or "religion").

International politics reflects in macrocosm true human nature in the microcosm. Absent fear, most human beings are amoral. Islam is a rationalization-camouflage for domination and exploitation. Belivers (and lukewarm Muslims)will resent anyone they do not dominate and are always potential killers-especially of non-Muslims who they are not dominating-exploiting. They resent not being dominant.

Posted by: Frank at January 5, 2008 10:04 AM

This is the risk of arming not just Muslims, but people. Soldiers intentionally killing their own is part of war. How many lieutenants have been intentionally killed by their own men? Pat Tillman was one.

By this logic we should condemn not just the soldiers who killed Pat Tillman, but all soldiers, because there is no way to distinguish a "moderate" soldier who will respect military authority in battle, from a "radical" one, who may turn against his officers.

It sounds to me like you're using this incident, and the many others you've posted on Jihad Watch, to say that "innocent until proven guilty should only apply to non-Muslims." Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, this Iraqi soldier committed a terrible crime, and he should, and will, be punished. But as for the 1.4 billion other Muslims in the world, they deserve the same respect we give Muslims within the U.S. Along with the rest of us, they are innocent until proven guilty.

Posted by: dirk at January 5, 2008 10:12 AM

Hi Robert,
It's being spun in Iraq (and elsewhere) as the Iraqi soldier "Ceasar" killed the two Americans for beating/raping a pregnant woman.

From Iraqi blogger Ladybird:

Iraqi soldier “Caesar” killed three American soldiers because they kicked and beat a pregnant woman

Reported on many Iraqi news sites, an Iraqi soldier killed two American soldiers and a captain for kicking a pregnant Iraqi woman

The incident happened two days ago when an Iraqi soldier “Caesar Saadi” joined the American occupation forces in a raid in Mosul, he opened fire after he saw the American soldiers started to beat and kick an Iraqi pregnant woman.

Lebanese newspaper Al-akhbar reported today the story added:

In the streets of Mosul, graffiti appeared on the walls yesterday saying:
Well done Caesar

Also, people in the city are distributing leaflets saying the same text.

Caesar is now in custody accused with killing three Americans."

American soldiers have done some heinous things during this conflict, so it's not out of the realm of possibility, but it's much more likely a case of SIS, Sudden Insurgent Syndrome.

Posted by: Mister Ghost at January 5, 2008 10:17 AM

dirk,
When it comes to this incident, we don't want to blow it out of proportion, as it it does not commonly happen, at least not yet. Nevertheless, there needs to be a healthy respect for the potential that Islam has for violence in all of its adherents, since, after all, it is a violent and intolerant ideology.
I think the more serious concern is the long run viability of Iraq as an ally if it is an Islamic state.

Posted by: jewdog at January 5, 2008 10:20 AM

"Abused the situation" is the history of sneak-attack Islam. It's just another manifestation of "War is deceit"

Posted by: BunrattyBill at January 5, 2008 10:24 AM

"But as for the 1.4 billion other Muslims in the world, they deserve the same respect we give Muslims within the U.S".

Muslims do not deserve respect because they do not treat other religions equally. "Islam must dominate, and not be dominated". Look at the center of this rationalization-domination-exploitation-ideology in Saudi Arabia. It is clear that Islam is the engine of Arab Imperialism.

Just look at how Muslims invaders destroyed the indigenous Hindu culture of India. The place would be better off today if it were all Hindu. Muslim destruction of the indigenous culture in India was no different (and in many ways more lethal) than Pizarro in Peru. Yet, unlike other cultures, there is no self-criticism of past crimes in Muslim history.

We must look at reality and not at the bullshit platitudes that are meant to deceive in this. "Islam must dominate, and not be dominated". What don't you understand about that?

Posted by: Frank at January 5, 2008 10:27 AM

posted by dirk:
"How many lieutenants have been intentionally killed by their own men? Pat Tillman was one. "

Hey there Dirky, Tillman was killed by friendly fire that was not intentional,and I take issue with you stating that a fellow Ranger would intentionally do this to another Ranger no matter who it was, Rangers are EXTREMLY loyal to one another,and if you had ever served as one you would know the stupidity of your statement.
good day sir

Posted by: tscipio at January 5, 2008 10:37 AM

Frank. Let's get this on the record. Are you willing to call "innocent before proven guilty" a bullshit platitude? That's the one my post hangs one.

Posted by: dirk at January 5, 2008 10:38 AM

""But as for the 1.4 billion other Muslims in the world, they deserve the same respect we give Muslims within the U.S. Along with the rest of us, they are innocent until proven guilty. ""

When the U.S. is run by a group of Keystone cops who dispense neither truth or justice and reward islamic terrorism at every opportunity,you would have to be an idiot to trust your naive assertion
Dirk.

Many of us do not fall for your strange faith in a corrupt,evil system when it comes to Moslems who openly declare their evil intentions.

Our deceitful corrupt government gave Jonathan Pollard ,a Jew life in Federal Prison foe helping Israel against the Islamic hordes and the moslem Nadim Prouty got 2 years American justice for helping hezbollah and Hamas,
This is your worthless American justice Dirk.
You and this government are the problem.

"An espionage case has come to light in Detroit that has a little of everything: besides espionage, there’s an illegal immigration angle, a Keystone Kops angle, and even involvement of major presidential candidates. It would make a great movie -- if this kind of thing doesn’t kill us first.
Nada Nadim Prouty is a Lebanese Muslim who has been employed by both the FBI and the CIA. She has admitted that she searched FBI files for information on investigations of Hizballah -- although, according to her plea agreement, she “was not assigned to work on Hezbollah cases as part of her F.B.I. duties and she was not authorized by her supervisor, the case agent assigned to the case, or anybody else to access information about the investigation in question.”
Cases she sought information about included those of two accused Hizballah operatives in the U.S. -- namely, her sister and brother-in-law. She also searched the files to see what information the Feds had on herself. Some believe she was actually a Hizballah informant. Prouty is, meanwhile, an illegal immigrant: she has also admitted to paying an American citizen to entering into a sham marriage with her so that she could obtain U.S. citizenship. She is currently married to a longtime State Department official who has held important positions in the Egyptian and Pakistani embassies.
The Keystone Kops angle revolves around the fact that not only did the Detroit-area FBI hire her despite her sham citizenship -- later, while working for the CIA, Prouty had access to key Al-Qaeda detainees in Iraq. What on earth was the FBI and the CIA thinking when they gave this woman sensitive jobs? They were almost certainly thinking about how good it was to have a Muslim on staff, to deflect criticism from the likes of the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council that their anti-terror efforts were anti-Muslim.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23512

Posted by: rocketman at January 5, 2008 10:42 AM

I have maintained for years that there is no reliable way to distinguish a "moderate" Muslim who rejects the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism.

Hi Robert,
I'm not sure you can spin this incident as an
attack of SJS or deception allowed in Islam. If this soldier, was an insurgent plant, which seems very likely, he could have attacked the American soldiers, just because he was a Good Baathist and hated the Americans for removing him/his relatives/his beloved Saddam from power. Or perhaps he was an Iraqi nationalist. The Baathist regime
for all its flaws was somewhat secular.

Posted by: Mister Ghost at January 5, 2008 10:43 AM

...Kostards applaud!

If you were Iraqi, what would you want to do? (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:truong son traveler
That's the question, and after Fallujha, Haditha, Abu Ghraib, the Blackwater massacres, and the slaughter of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, many in air raids, I for one would kill American soldiers to rid my country of them, if I was Iraqi.
"Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

by chimpwatch on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:33:55 AM PST

Posted by: Terp Mole at January 5, 2008 11:00 AM

OT But good news.

Foxnews.com has the story of the Dallas killings of the teens with quotes from Brigette Gabriel.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320325,00.html

Note to Nassem;
I have never tasted crack cocaine either, but with a 98% percent addiction rate, I think I'll pass.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 5, 2008 11:11 AM

dirka dirka dirka sez,
"All you frogs quit your bitchin' about how hot the water is getting in the pot."
/frog...pot...boil

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 5, 2008 11:25 AM

The Koran dictates to the slaves-of-allah,
"Jihad is prescribed to you." Averroes and other commentators have elaborated various means of performance, from finance to terror participation. ALL Muslims are practising jihadis, even when all they do is dictate "Islam is peace" to their scribe: the slavish US President. Bush loves Muslims; Muslims hate Bush.

I downloaded the high budget Turkish film, "In the Valley of the Wolves," the director concocts a scenario where a group of Turks are humiliated in Iraq, and take up jihad with locals. In the film local collaborators with Americans take belated cause to attempt murder of the US governor (played by Billy Zane, as a chauffeur driven dandy), and plant a bomb in a piano given as a gift to same. In the film, Abu Ghraib Prison is portrayed as laid out with cement holes where the internees are sprayed with pressure hoses. But worse, their organs are removed for sale. In one perverse scene, the actor Gary Busey is seen removing a kidney from a prisoner and putting in dry ice in a package that reads: "To Tel Aviv." In various scenes, American soldiers slaughter Iraqis with reckless abandon. One scene shows terrorists being transferred to Abu Ghraib in a shipping container. When a US soldier protests conditions he is shot dead by one of the governor's bodyguards, who sprays the container with bullets, and pronounces it aired out. For jihad sustenance, the Turk group takes counsel from imans at mosques. Terror follows prayer. For Christians, there is counsel on emulating Christ's meekness. However, it is Muslims who will inherent the earth, by immigration pollution and terror subsidy in the name of "nation building."

Posted by: supercargo at January 5, 2008 11:52 AM

OT
This is important, this man won in Iowa.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-backs-taliban-supporter-in.html

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 5, 2008 11:59 AM

It's the same apologists spouting the same apology, don't blame Islam, for honor killings, FMS, it's cultural, don't blame Islam for the murder of these soldiers, it was insurgency...anything to remove any references to the Islamic ideology that is ultimately behind these acts. The only way to remove the stain of Islam off these particular murders, is to show that the murderer was not a muslim, and was not acting under Islamic jihad.
Also I don't buy the kicking a pregnant woman story, unless proven by a competent investigation. This is just the kind of taqiyya muslims love, like Al-Dura.

Posted by: duh_swami at January 5, 2008 12:08 PM

I see that the Kenyan story is at DW.
Hey, it should be everywhere.
Sunlight, the best disinfectant.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 5, 2008 12:10 PM

dirk writes:
"But as for the 1.4 billion other Muslims in the world, they deserve the same respect we give Muslims within the U.S. Along with the rest of us, they are innocent until proven guilty."

The Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan are legal in the
U.S., and if they don't commit crimes, they won't
be bothered (innocent until proven guilty) but
they don't deserve any respect. I believe the
analogy with Islam and Muslims here is quite good.
Islam is very much like Nazism.

It's also the case that when certain kinds of
crimes happen, one might be led to suspect a
KKK member. Ditto for Islam and Muslims.

Also, when we step outside of criminal proceedings
(where the bullshit platitude, as you put it, is
applicable) and look at nations, religions, and their history, Muslims are far from innocent.

Hope I answered your questions. Please inform yourself about what happened to Pat Tillman so
you don't spew any BS yourself in the future.

Posted by: root_cause at January 5, 2008 1:19 PM

Kirk, that clause of innocent before proven guilty is for the courts and not for individual citizens.

I feel i need to repeat that several times for you and like minded people to get the whole jist of it.

And just in retrospect, if the muslims condem me for my faith from the get go then why shouldn't I for them. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?.

Oh wait I know, we americans are suppossed to be idiots that live by a higher standerd that nobody else does. For example, tell me a of a war in the last century where our opponents DID NOT break the geneva conventions.

Posted by: 19thgenamerican at January 5, 2008 4:53 PM

"But as for the 1.4 billion other Muslims in the world, they deserve the same respect we give Muslims within the U.S. Along with the rest of us, they are innocent until proven guilty."
-- from a statement above by "Dirk"

There are two things wrong with that statement. The first is the inflated number given for the world's Muslim population -- "1.4 billion." Muslim apologists, who wish to stress that Islam is "the world's fastest-growing religion," usually engage in such exaggerated numbers, for like a frog swelling its throat to appear larger and more fearsome than it actually is, Muslim apologists do the same. I expect any day now 1.6, 1.8, or even "2 billion" Muslims to be the figure thorwn around by those Muslim apologists.

The second, and much more important thing wrong, is the curious use of the word "innocent" in the sentence "Muslims within the U.S.[a]long with the rest of us, they are innocent until proven guilty."

"Innocent" of what? Are those who call themselves Muslims "innocent" of believing that the Qur'an is the uncreated and immutable Word of God? Are they "innocent" of believing that Sura 9, for example, is the immutable Word of God? If they are told to slay the Unbelievers, if they are deep believers in the truth not only of Sura 9, but of many other bloodcurdling passages (see the "Calcutta Koran Petition" or, for that matter, www.faithfreedom.org or www.answering-islam.org for more on the contents of the Qur'an, and what have been called its "Jihad verses"), if they not only believe the Qur'an is the Word of God but that Muhammad is "uswa hasana" (as he is called in the Qur'an), that is a Model of Conduct, and "al-insan al-kamil," that is the Perfect Man, worthy of emulation beyond all other men, and if that Model of Conduct and Perfect Man spent much of his life in warfare, and assassination, and if among the events of that life are the decapitation of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, and the approval of the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, merely for poetic mockery, and the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, and the consummation of that marriage to little Aisha when she was nine years old, and the trick of signing that "treaty" with the Meccans at Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D., and then breaking an agreement that the Meccans had honored within 18 months, a mode of dealing that became the model for all subsequent "peace treaties" with Infidels (see Majid Khadduri, Law of War and Peace in Islam), if all of this is what Muslims believe, and they claim to, who are we to deny them that belief, and why, in turn, should we not come to our own conclusions as to whether or not those who call themselves Muslims can conceivably support, or must necessarily work to undermine,the legal and political instiutions of the Infidel nation-state, including this one, and who, furthermore, given the example of Muhammad and the clear tenets of Islam, which inculcate the notion of a state of permanent war (though not necessarily open warfare) between Believers and Infidels, should we not conclude that Muslims represent a permanent threat as well to the long-term physical security of Infidels, as in fact has proven again and again to be the case, not only over the 1350-year history of Islamic conqust, but today, in countries as far apart as Thailand and Sudan and Nigeria and Lebanon and Iraq and Egypt and, yes, France and Great Britain and Spain and the Netherlands and Canada and even the United States -- in every single one of which, in recent years, there have been Infidels who have been attacked and murdered, by this or that Muslim individual or group.

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2008 4:57 PM

dirk, we "Respect" them alright. We tend to respect what they say, and do, and wish for us to be true. Taking a person at their word is the ultimate form of "respect".

So please, inform us as to why you show them so little, "respect", and why we should follow your example?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 5, 2008 5:21 PM

The US initially reported the deaths of Capt Rowdy Inman, 38, and Sgt Benjamin Portell, 27, as resulting from hostile small arms fire.

And how many other cases like this have there been, where we never learn the true story? A "joint operation" takes place, the patrol comes under fire (or not), the Iraqi soldiers open up on the backs of the U.S. soldiers, reinforcements arrive, and oops, the U.S. soldiers were killed by "hostile small arms fire". Maybe the Iraqi troops even get awarded for "bravery under fire", who the *$@# knows anymore how far we're willing to go with this?

Can someone remind me, did we send our troops out on "joint operations" with moderate Nazis to search out extremist Nazis during WWII?

Posted by: special_guest at January 5, 2008 6:28 PM

U.S. Navy Seals are making a special effort to recruit new Navy Seals from amongst the Dearborn, Michigan Arab Moslems. This was announced on the Pentagon Channel TV.

I suppose the idea is to get Arabic speakers into the Navy special forces. Bad idea. If I were a Moslem jihadist, I would try to get all that good Seal training and then put it to use in the cause of Allah.

Not being a Moslem, I would never trust a Moslem in my unit. There was that U.S. Marine that went over the hill, then a Moslem U.S. Navy sailor who was found to be working for the Islamic enemy. Etc., etc.

Anyway, when one (a non-Moslem) is in the U.S. armed forces, one is not free to critique armed forces policy--publicly. Privately, if one talks to U.S. sevice personnel, one finds that they are less than enchanted by what are called by the Command Structure to be their Iraqi and Afghan "counterparts."

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 5, 2008 9:33 PM

"U.S. Navy Seals are making a special effort to recruit new Navy Seals from amongst the Dearborn, Michigan Arab Moslems. This was announced on the Pentagon Channel TV."
-- from a posting above

And just how do they intend to vet these volunteers? What is the cost of an investigation into their backgrounds, and how likely is it that Muslims, who have been able to infiltrate even into the Turkish army, run by fellow Muslims who take their Kemalism more seriously than they do their Islam, will avoid detection as they play the game of eager or, possibly more clever, reluctant "volunteers" for the Navy Seals.

Or is the announcement on the Pentagon channel, of which I was unaware, merely an outward sign of a non-existent campaign, designed to fool Muslims into thinking the Pentagon has been fooled? A hall of mirrors, but given the extraordinary naivete and ignorance of so many "intel" specialists (see Jeffrey Carr, for example), one suspects Muslims are running circles around those trying in this country to monitor them, and limit their ability to do damage.

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2008 1:02 PM

Spot on analysis Hugh,but our principle dilemma is communicating such knowledge to the "hipster"/Marx indoctrinated gum-smacking masses of the "Starbucks" clan who utter such whoopers as:"They never spread this faith by the sword!) and whose attention span would be shot two sentences into such an elegant and enlightening rebuttal. Our future depends on reaching enough people before the train derails.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at January 6, 2008 3:04 PM

The US initially reported the deaths of Capt Rowdy Inman, 38, and Sgt Benjamin Portell, 27, as resulting from hostile small arms fire.
And how many other cases like this have there been, where we never learn the true story? A "joint operation" takes place, the patrol comes under fire (or not), the Iraqi soldiers open up on the backs of the U.S. soldiers, reinforcements arrive, and oops, the U.S. soldiers were killed by "hostile small arms fire". Maybe the Iraqi troops even get awarded for "bravery under fire", who the *$@# knows anymore how far we're willing to go with this?

Can someone remind me, did we send our troops out on "joint operations" with moderate Nazis to search out extremist Nazis during WWII?

Posted by: special_guest

How many nazis were imported in the guise of "tolerance and understand" to western nations during WWII?

There was that guy at the beginning of the Iraq war who pitched a grenade in a tent. Probably more, but one incident I read, it was a detailed account over a year ago from an American soldiers report on fighting where they were working with the Iraqi forces(posted here btw). The soldier said teh Iraqis "vanished" when the bullets were flying and him and his men weren't sure who was firing, and from where, and they werent' sure if their own joint forces, Iraqi forces embedded with them were doing the shooting. He described how they'd go through peoples homes, and the Iraqi forces would pillage for anything of value to steal (lawful booty) and he closed with a story of how one of the Iraqi soldiers held a gun to I think it was a reporters head and pulled the trigger but his gun was empty of bullets (the reporter didn't know this when it was being stuck in his face) and then had a nice laugh and said he was joking.

These are the forces the Americans are training. They are training the enemy how to kill more effectively, and arming them in their tasks. At some point the sunnis now working with Americans will turn on them, they have already and will continue to do so. Infiltration takes time, you need to get the recruits in, enough of them in, trained and ready to kill. Even those that dont' kill the American soldiers, can still sell their new found expertise in warfare to the highest bidder, such as Iranian forces(like what's going on in Basra for example) or other militias that will serve the US no purpose.

Big mistake, but it's not really much different from training, arming and financing the Arabs occupying Jewish lands in Judea/Samaria and the Gaza.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at January 7, 2008 10:38 AM