May 08, 2007
The Iranian Minefield
A Pajamas Media
exclusive:
Maj. Martin Weber, an explosives expert, is trying to walk through a political mine field with me.
As with an ordinary mine field, you have to be very careful where you put your emphasis. Stress the wrong truth and either the left or the right wants to blow you up.
Here at Camp Victory, a sprawling concrete and razor wire American base that wraps around Baghdad International Airport, Maj. Weber was trying to explain how to negotiate that mine field. On the one side he wanted me to know me that the captured weapons on the table before us were — definitely, no doubt about it, absolutely — from Iran. On the other hand, he avoided drawing the obvious conclusion that Iran is supplying America’s enemies inside Iraq.
That simple and obvious conclusion would anger the Democratic leadership in Congress, much of the press corp, and a large swarth of the antiwar set.
Bear this is mind, when you watch this exclusive Pajamas Media video shot in Iraq. The video offers startling new evidence of IranÂ’s involvement in the insurgency. It is the first up-close, online video showing captured Iranian weapons. These particular weapons have not been shown to the public before.
There is video of the interview at the link.
As a side note, I've been attempting to follow-up on the capture of over 12% of Iran's HS50 precision sniper rifle procurement in Iraq first reported in mid-February, without any response thus far from MNF-I PAO.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:59 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Contrary to the stated beliefs of many Right-leaning posters I've dealt with, I sincerely
want to be able to trust that my government is doing the right thing; they are, after all, going to do something in my name, and it's always best if it is the
right thing.
But, geez, I find it almost impossible to believe the Iran connection. There was so much "Yes, we're sure"-ing and "slam dunk"-ing and so on, only to find out that it was, to a large extent, hooey. "We really thought we were right," the Administration says, "and look: the Democrats believed us!" But they seem to think they're right now, too. Let's set aside malicious conspiracy theories for now. Is it just bad intelligence again? Is it going to turn into another "Oopsies!" moment? Will we find ourselves in another, "Well, we've started now, so we can't stop, even if we were wrong" situation?
It seems that the Republicans might have painted the Democrats into a corner on Iran--just not the corner they like. If a Democrat now approves force against Iran and it turns out that this was another mistake--even an honest one--then the Right will once again be on the attack with, "Well, you were for it before you were against it, ya damned flipflopper!" It might be easier for Democrats
not to go with evidence, however strong it might seem to be. It
seemed strong last time, too.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 08, 2007 01:31 PM (nrafD)
2
I find it almost impossible to believe the Iran connection.
Keeping one's head in the sand will do that.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 08, 2007 03:29 PM (n2qMj)
3
I take your point, Avenger: it's easy not to believe if you choose not to look at the evidence. Why, though, should people take this evidence seriously when last time turned out wrong in major respects?
That's not a rhetorical question. If anyone has some kind of compelling argument why the case against Iran is
definitely right, whereas the intelligence on Iraq got so screwed up, I'll listen with my mind as open as I can pry it.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 08, 2007 05:46 PM (nrafD)
4
But, geez, I find it almost impossible to believe the Iran connection. There was so much "Yes, we're sure"-ing and "slam dunk"-ing and so on, only to find out that it was, to a large extent, hooey.
Be honest, Doc: did you watch either the PJM video, or click on the link to my previous article on the HS50s?
The Iranian fuses common to 81mm and 60 mm mortars and unibody cast tailboom assembly are unique to Iranian manufacture. The Iranian EFPs, unlike the Iraqi-manufactured EFPs, actually work against modern armor, and have passive infrared triggers manufactured by no one other than Iran.
The HS50s captured were directly tracked from Austria, to Iran to Iraq, with known serial numbers, and in such quantities ( more than 100 of 600 by February) that denying Iranian involvement is nothing less that willful self-deception, or if you prefer it, another form of Trutherism.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 08, 2007 05:57 PM (HcgFD)
5
"... It might be easier for Democrats not to go with evidence, however strong it might seem to be. ..."
That's been part of the Democratic playbook for quite some time, so you're kinda stating the obvious.
(Yes, it's taken out of context, but it jumped out at me as being too, too true.)
Posted by: DoorHold at May 08, 2007 08:17 PM (kUFJH)
6
I just want to know: is it really that far-fetched that Saddamn knew we were coming and got rid of the WMDs? I mean what else could he do to spite us? He couldnt fight us militarily. The only thing he could do was make the war seem illigetimate by sending the weapons to Syria. There is evidence thats what happened. I guess that doesnt fit with the KOS talking points though.
Posted by: Justin at May 08, 2007 10:37 PM (NiTuu)
7
when last time turned out wrong in major respects?
Yea, that can happen when a guy has the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD fooled, even his own generals who thought he had the stuff. I don't suppose you've read the section in Dulfer where it stated even Saddam's own generals were convinced they had the stuff.
If they believed, how on earth do you expect outside intel agencies to do any better?
Here today, we're looking at actual weapons, not speculations or extrapolations. Either Iran is or is not the only country to have made single piece cast tailfins for mortar rounds. This is something easily verifiable by any major news agency with the resources to go buy/rent one of every example available.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 08, 2007 11:09 PM (n2qMj)
8
I say news agency because its obvious you believe the Major to be lying and/or incompetent in his job.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 08, 2007 11:11 PM (n2qMj)
9
Avenger:
I don't as yet have any opinion on the Major's competence or veracity. Nothing I wrote was intended to cast him in a bad light, and I'm sorry if it was construed that way.
I am not challenging any specific evidence about Iran's possible involvement in attacking U.S. troops. CY is correct: I haven't yet read the evidence, because I keep hoping that someone can assure me, before I start digging in, that this set of facts is more correct than was the last set of facts that got us into Iraq. "Hey,
everybody was fooled," doesn't cut it for me. Let's not be fooled this time; let's get it so right that nobody on either side of the aisle can question it.
Why is this stuff more solid than the last stuff was?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 09, 2007 08:38 AM (EdJ5a)
10
Why is this stuff more solid than the last stuff was?
Should we start with solids themselves? Watch the video. Watch past videos presented on major networks and certainly out there in YouTube. REad news accounts.
We physically have Iranian weapons.
This includes scored of RPGs, mortars in various sizes, artillary shells, and of course, EFPS.
We also have more than 100 sniper rifles we know Iran's government bought on the open market from Austria's Steyr that have been recovered in Iraq of 600 they purchased.
If the physical recovery of weapons that only they make the way they do, and the purchase and later capture of weapons of weapons we know they bought isn't enough phsycial proof (along with the five Quds force operatives we are still holding after capturing them in Iraq) isn't enough, you're simply a truther, Doc.
This is rock-solid.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 09, 2007 09:05 AM (9y6qg)
11
Again, CY, I'm not at the point where I'm saying that any evidence is weak or strong, wrong or right; I haven't looked at anything yet. I just want to know what I'm getting into.
Actually having weapons would already make the case stronger than the case for WMD in Iraq.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 09, 2007 10:22 AM (nrafD)
12
I don't as yet have any opinion on the Major's competence or veracity.
Yet you doubt the credibility of the story for some reason.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 09, 2007 10:31 AM (pGj0D)
13
Just wariness based on the past confusions surrounding the Iraq invasion, Avenger.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 09, 2007 01:16 PM (nrafD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Child Mortality Discrepancy?
Writing in the UK
Independent, Andrew Buncombe
states:
Two wars and a decade of sanctions have led to a huge rise in the mortality rate among young children in Iraq, leaving statistics that were once the envy of the Arab world now comparable with those of sub-Saharan Africa.
A new report shows that in the years since 1990, Iraq has seen its child mortality rate soar by 125 per cent, the highest increase of any country in the world. Its rate of deaths of children under five now matches that of Mauritania.
Jeff MacAskey, head of health for the Save the Children charity, which published the report, said: "Iraq, Botswana and Zimbabwe all have different reasons for making the least amount of progress on child mortality. Whether it's the impact of war, HIV/Aids or poverty the consequences are equally devastating. Yet other countries such as Malawi and Nepal have shown that despite conflict and poverty child mortality rates can be reversed."
Figures collated by the charity show that in 1990 Iraq's mortality rate for under-fives was 50 per 1,000 live births. In 2005 it was 125. While many other countries have higher rates - Angola, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, all have rates above 200 - the increase in Iraq is higher than elsewhere.
Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison?
According to figures from the CIA World Factbook there are roughly 864,588 live births in Iraq every year (about 31.44 for every 1,000 citizens). In 2003 there was an infant mortality rate in Iraq of 55.16 per 1,000 births, or about 47,690 infant deaths.
In 2006 that infant mortality rate has dropped to 48.64 deaths per 1,000 births. Or about 42,503 infant deaths/year. Or about 5,187 fewer dead infants every year than in 2003.
So is it safe to say that weÂ’ve saved roughly (and these numbers are, admittedly, very rough) 15,000 infant lives since invading Iraq?
Note that the statistics cited by Buncombe are addressing the death rates of children under five between 1990-today, and Port's information isolates infant mortality from the time period of 2003-2006. Those differences noted, there seems to be a huge possible discrepancy between the rough number of 2005 under-five deaths reported by Save the Children through Buncombe (125) and the infant mortality rate of 55.16-48.64/1,000 determined by Port.
Both numbers could be correct, but for Save the Children's figures to be accurate based upon the CIA estimate of 864,588 live births, it would mean that 12.5% of Iraqi children under five, or 108,074 Iraqi children, died before the age of five in 2005 alone.
Does that figure seem plausible?
If it does, why has the professional media done such a miserable job of reporting the staggering losses of children in Iraq, which would seem to dwarf most total estimates of combat-related deaths?
If it isn't accurate, why hasn't Buncombe done a better job of fact-checking his sources?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:15 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.
1
"why has the professional media done such a miserable job of reporting the staggering losses of children in Iraq, which would seem to dwarf most total estimates of combat-related deaths?"
Because the primary interest of the corporate media is entrenching its own power and that of the class of its overlords. The corporate overlords want to suppress knowledge of the third world suffering caused by western corporations. The secondary interest is in maintaining their audience. But racist Americans don't really care if brown children die.
Posted by: Benj at May 08, 2007 01:35 PM (IwiEe)
2
Am I the only one who wonders if the CIA World Factbook--published by the United States Government--might be just a bit biased when discussing civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan?
That the source has a vested interest in making life in these two countries look as good as possible does not make these statistics wrong. Still, in the recent posts here and at Say Anything on this subject, the source material is giving only estimates for 2003-2006, and it makes me wonder what criteria they use for their estimates.
The UN, for example, has a very different number: 94 per 1000 for both 2000 and 2005 (http://unstats.un(dot)org/unsd/cdb/cdb_years_on_top.asp?srID=13620&Ct1ID=&crID=368&yrID=2000%2C2005). This may not be any more accurate, but it is certainly different, and it shows that there is value in looking at more than one source.
I am not saying that the CIA is lying--only suggesting the possibility that they may be using estimation or counting criteria that paint a rosier picture than the facts on the ground. Indeed, the UN numbers, though they don't suggest that the war has improved infant mortality in Iraq, at least indicate that it hasn't made it worse.
Main point: don't blindly accept data just because it conforms to your political preferences. Look for bias (which the UN certainly has plenty of). And look for other sources--if they differ wildly, something is wrong.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 08, 2007 02:33 PM (ZDZVo)
3
Here is another set of numbers on Iraqi infant mortality: http://www.unicef(dot)org/ infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html. (clear the space after the "org"). Still from the UN, and still suspect. But it may help see why Buncombe and the CIA book have different numbers: one is using under-5 mortality, and the other neonatal (under-1) mortality.
Sorry to harp on this, but it seems pretty counter-intuitive to think that infant mortality could drop in the middle of a war and subsequent insurgency. So I am automatically suspicious of any stats showing that this is what is happening.
Of course, I hope this is all true. Just doesn't really pass the smell test, in my opinion--even though I haven't been able to find anything definitive to rebut the claim.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 08, 2007 02:42 PM (ZDZVo)
4
That the source has a vested interest in making life in these two countries look as good as possible
So how is providing inaccurate data to US administrations somehow a vested interest and something the CIA would desire to do? Can you explain the precise mechanism of how this?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 08, 2007 03:32 PM (n2qMj)
5
RSS, you miss the obvious point. We have medical units all over Iraq. How about considering access to more and improved medical help?
Posted by: CoRev at May 08, 2007 04:04 PM (0U8Ob)
6
Of course, there is the additional problem of taking any facts from Saddamite Iraq at face value. Are those figures true? Were the books cooked to make Iraq seem better than it was? Even if an outside agency was reporting, where did they get their figures from?
Keeping in mind CNN's post-invasion revelation that they let the Iraqi government censor their reports from Iraq. With tyranny's like Saddamite Iraq few figures and pronouncements have any value.
BTW, this is just a cautionary note to be careful with certain sources.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at May 08, 2007 04:20 PM (B26Fg)
7
PA: I can think of at least three reasons to think that the data in the CIA World Fact Book might be inaccurate:
1. The publicly released data differs materially from that provided to US Administrations. We are not seeing what they are seeing.
2. The CIA is giving Administrations the same data it gives the public, but that data is flawed because collection or estimation methods miss crucial counts or inputs.
3. The CIA gives both the public and the Administrations incorrect data because individuals in the organization have some reason to want to do so. This could be low-level analysts trying to hide their incompetence or higher-level officers with a political agenda of some sort.
I am, again, not accusing them of deception. I think the most likely scenario is poor collection and estimation methods--driven not by incompetence or intent to fudge data, but by the difficulty of collecting information in the situation they face.
The data on Soviet economic and military power given to Administrations by the CIA during the Cold War was notoriously and demonstrably false (See, for example, Tom Gervasi's book "The Myth of Soviet Military Supremacy"). This false data lead to serious miscalculations about Soviet capabilities that made their eventual collapse a huge surprise to almost everyone. So I believe that a sceptical look at CIA data is warranted.
CoRev: I agree that if this data is true, access to improved health care from US military medical units would help to explain it. I have, however, seen no evidence that military units are treating Iraqi children on anything like a large scale, and would be surprised to find that our military hospitals there provide significant prenatal and obstetric care (this is not typically the type of doctor deployed to war zones--when our own female soldiers become pregnant, they are shipped out for care). If this order of battle is correct (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_toe.htm) I would estimate no more than about 8-10000 medical personnel deployed there, most of them tied up taking care of US casualties, as they should. I doubt this is enough to have the effect the data seem to show (likewise our much less robust presence in Afghanistan). Of course, others are working this as well, including contractors, but US efforts are probably not compensating for the generally deteriorating civilian health care system there.
Also, see here for an article suggesting that while US military hospitals are indeed treating Iraqi children, they are not properly equipped to handle pediatric care--Air Force officers lobbying for such capability: http://www.medicalnewstoday(dot)com/medicalnews.php?newsid=51183
Here is an article that details more generally the deteriorating health care situation in Iraq, including still another infant mortality rate number (125 per 1000, under 5 rate): http://www.globalresearch(dot)ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DE%2020070406&articleId=5289.
And one more here: http://www.latimes(dot)com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-health11nov11,0,3477207.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Again, I would love to think that our presence there is doing some good. But I am not convinced by CIA data. And while treatment from US military facilities would indeed explain improvement if it is true, it looks like this is not enough to have the powerful effect shown by the data.
Remember Occam's Razor. I think the simplest explanation here is bad data.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at May 08, 2007 04:38 PM (2k+mA)
8
There is much reason to doubt the alleged increase in infant mortality in later years. Unicef previouls stated that in excess of 500,000 died during the sanctions. Presumably the chidren would be dying an even greater rate if we had left the Sadaamists in power.
Posted by: davod at May 08, 2007 05:33 PM (RdotW)
9
Dear Confederate Yankee, That's exactly what it means - in 2005 alone, 122,000 Iraqi children died before reaching their fifth birthday. Please look at this link.
http://www.savethechildren.org/newsroom/2007/reducing-child-deaths-iraq-egypt.html
Save the Children took their figures from Unicef, which I reckon is probably a reasonable source. You say I shd "check" the sources but what genuine suggestions do you have to go about checking such figures?
As to Benj's claim that the main interest of the MSM is "entrenching its own power and that of the class of its overlords", if this was true why did MSM outlets such as The Independent report this story.
Best wishes,
Andrew
Posted by: AndrewBuncombe at May 09, 2007 10:54 AM (x0Gud)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Clever Little Weapons
Michael Yon's latest dispatch Rattlesnake, chronicles the nighttime hunting of insurgent IED teams in southern Iraq.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
Six Arrested in New Jersey Islamic Terror Plot
Via
WNBC.com:
Six men from New Jersey have been arrested in an alleged terror plot against soldiers at Fort Dix, according investigators.
Investigators said the men planned to use automatic weapons to enter Fort Dix and kill as many soldiers as they could at the N.J. base. Fort Dix was just one of several military and security locations allegedly scouted by this group, authorities said.
[snip]
The six suspects arrested Monday night will face terror conspiracy charges. Three of the men are brothers, all believed to be islamic radicals. Authorities have told Newschannel 4 that some of the men were born in Albania and the former Yugoslavia. Investigators said most of the suspects have spent several years here in the U.S.
According to WPVI, the six men attempted to purchase fully automatic AK-47s from an arms dealer working with the FBI. WABC describes the six men as all being ethnic Albanians. Their immigration status was not clear from news accounts. WCAU notes that the men traveled from South Jersey to the Pocano mountains "to practice firing automatic weapons." If accurate, this means that investigators allowed the men to obtain the fully automatic AK-47s before affecting an arrest. CBS News states that this was a "homegrown" terror plot, and that there were no known ties to any international terror organization, including al Qaeda.
The New Jersey Star-Ledger presents perhaps the most comprehensive account to date, which confirms that the attack busted in the planning stages was an intended act of jihad, that the men were arrested while attempting to purchase the AK-47s from the FBI informant dealer, and that the men did not practice with automatic weapons in the Poconos, but instead, used paintball guns and other "real weapons."
The Star-Ledger also shows that while the men may not have been part of an international terror cell, they were certainly inspired by al Qaeda:
The would-be attackers, ethnic Albanians who had been under surveillance by the FBI for months, practiced by shooting paintball guns and real weapons in a rural area of the Poconos, one source said. They also allegedly watched jihadist videos in which Osama bin Laden urged them toward martyrdom.
"They were prepared to die," said the law enforcement source. "We became increasingly convinced this was for real and these guys were ready to roll."
The FBI had the group under surveillance for more than a year, the source said. The men had scouted out Dover Air Force Base and Fort Monmouth before settling on Fort Dix, a base that is used to mobilize troops to Iraq, said the source.
The men - several of whom were in the same family - had videotaped their practice sessions in the Poconos, the source said. That videotape, in which they railed against America, led to their arrests.
The men made the mistake of bringing it to a retail store, seeking to get a copy burned to a DVD, according to one of the sources. A store employee who later watched the tape called the FBI who began immediately investigating.
The one question I have about the above Star-Ledger account is perhaps a quibble, but something I'd like to have cleared up; did they watch a generally addressed martyrdom video extolling Muslims towards jihad, or as this account states, did they watch a video urging them towards martyrdom? I suspect the former, as if the latter is the case, it would seem to prove a direct al Qaeda link.
Note that the Islamists here were anything but intelligent, bringing their homegrown jihadi video to a retail store to burn it to DVD, where a concerned and alert employee contacted the FBI, which launched the investigation.
I hope President Bush will quietly award a Presidential Medal of Freedom to both the video store employee and the gun dealer for their roles in helping break up this attack in the planning stages.
Update: Heh. Did the tip come from Tony Soprano?
Update: Allah is tracking this story at well over at Hot Air.
Update: CNN reports that one of the suspects was Jordanian and another was Turkish, with the rest being Yugoslavian.
The Washington Post adds that the suspects have lived in the United States for "several years."
CBS3 provides more detail on the suspects:
Sources said the suspects included:
- Three brothers from Yugoslavia who came to the country illegally and were living in Cherry Hill.
- A Yugoslavian native who was living legally in Williamstown.
- A Turkey native who was arrested in the 2100 block of Tremont Street in Philadelphia
- A Jordan National living in Pennsauken who was working as a cab driver. He was taken into custody while in his cab at the Philadelphia International Airport.
Officials said the men attempted to purchase AK-47s from an arms dealer secretly cooperating with law enforcement agents.
Sources said the suspects trained for the plot in an area near Routes 30 and 380 in the Poconos. The suspects apparently had maps and had done surveillance on Fort Dix in preparation for the plot.
If the CBS3 account is correct, at least three of the six plotters were here illegally, and all were here for a least a year, if not several years.
Update: I formally move that we call this the "Duka, Duka, Mohammed Jihad."
Update: A total of ten men were seen on the video that launched the investigation, as reported in this document obtained by The Smoking Gun.
Update: A sampling of liberal blog reaction: The Agonist: "...when are these insignificant cases going to stop being blown out of proportion?" Talking Points Memo: "It's always hard for me to see how these aren't as serious as they appear. But there is a record." Middle Earth Journal: "This will probably turn out to be another José Padilla moment but it will be good for a lot of ape like chest pounding by the wingnut islamophobes." Mahablog: "The basic story is that six Islamic radicals were planning to attack Fort Dix and kill soldiers as part of a jihad against America. This is what the Department of Justice is saying, anyhow, so take that with a grain of salt."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:52 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1042 words, total size 8 kb.
1
They sound a lot like the "youths" that have been Molotov Cocktailing buildings and burning cars in France the last 3 years.
Posted by: Rodney A Stanton at May 08, 2007 08:20 AM (bxDu4)
2
"CBS News states that this was a "homegrown" terror plot, and that there were no known ties to any international terror organization, including al Qaeda."
Maybe. Maybe not.
Copy cat killers. Spontaneous. Unpredictable. Stupid. That analysis is most disturbing.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at May 08, 2007 08:30 AM (Cy7OH)
3
Think about the fact that our intervention in Eastern Europe probably allowed them to live as they were close to extermination by the governments at the time. So much for thanks.
Also, they will likely sue the video store.
Posted by: David Caskey at May 08, 2007 09:08 AM (G5i3t)
4
These were not home grown terrorists. These were jihadists bent on the destruction of the American soldier. In other words they were democrats. I can hardly believe that the way our congress is acting that they didn't believe that they would be rewarded for their diligence. Wake up America and smell the blood of our patriots. We fight or we die. capc
Posted by: capc at May 08, 2007 09:09 AM (HmWWn)
5
Just a note on CBS3's coverage - There is no Route 30 in the Poconos.
Posted by: fezziwig at May 08, 2007 09:16 AM (MV0nA)
6
I wonder how the media will try to do damage control to the stereotype that all gun dealers are unscrupulous redneck nut jobs that will sell to any jihadi, disgruntled postman, or bullied sociopathic teen.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 08, 2007 09:33 AM (oC8nQ)
Posted by: Bill Faith at May 08, 2007 09:57 AM (n7SaI)
8
You cannot buy automatic weapons in the U.S. unless you are Federally liscensed.
Posted by: dan in michigan at May 08, 2007 09:58 AM (uSI6F)
9
Speaking of stereotypes, why is it that every gun dealer always has a back room or hidden compartment where he keeps all sorts of banned or military weapons like hand grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and series 4 decarbonizers.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 08, 2007 10:34 AM (oC8nQ)
10
"These were not home grown terrorists. These were jihadists bent on the destruction of the American soldier. In other words they were democrats. "
you are sick and paranoid, and a fascist to boot.
you do not deserve your freedom.
Posted by: jvf at May 08, 2007 11:36 AM (XhY69)
11
And how was this plot broken? By applying good, old-fashioned law enforcement techniques -- not torture or intrusive electronic surveillance.
Posted by: Phranqlin at May 08, 2007 11:41 AM (WLhBy)
12
I love how the press is pointing out that some of these creeps were born in the "former Yugoslavia" rather than say what they are: ethnic albanians from Kosovo. I noticed that the description of them as such has been changed...perhaps in an attempt for the reading public to equate them with the Serbs rather than the scumbag, terrorist albanians (that we mistakenly and stupidly assisted back in '9
. It's disgraceful!
Posted by: nin at May 08, 2007 12:04 PM (XcZy7)
13
A couple of disturbing comments above are worth noting, particularly the comment by "capc" equating Democrats with jihadists, and the comment left by "jvf" that labeled "capc" a fascist, only to turn around and make the fascist comment that "capc" doesn't deserve his freedoms.
I'm not sure which comment is more disturbing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 08, 2007 12:35 PM (9y6qg)
14
CY: The Left, as always, is in league with genocidal maniacs who want to destroy America. Rosie O'Donnel, Steny Hoyer, Nanci Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, Katrina Van Den Heuvel, Walter Durranty, Alger Hiss, Norman Thomas, Gore Vidal George McGovern; they all sided with those dedicated to committing genocide, whether they be Communists, Jihadists, Yippies, or Nazis. Calling them on this is the duty of us all, rather than keeping up false niceties that there isn't a huge 5th column in this country and in the corridors of power.
The Democrats are aligned with jihadis to advance their ends at home, deny that we face any threat, and claim that the entire struggle against Islamism is a racist/paranoid fantasy. They truly are adhering to our enemies and there is nothing disturbing or wrong with saying it.
Posted by: Hey at May 08, 2007 01:04 PM (E9xh0)
15
CY, props on trying to keep the name-calling on this board down to a minimum.
Democrats, with Republicans, both fought against communism during the cold war. Ask JFK, LBJ, etc. Democrats may not have been zealous blowhards like McCarthy and his followers, but that's probably a good thing.
And what genocide did the Democrats specifically side with? You can accuse Clinton for not doing enough during Rwanda, that's for sure, but I really can't think of a time when the Democrats were all like “Yo, you know what’s cool? The systematic destruction of an oppressed ethnic group. Yeah, THAT'S cool.”
Posted by: dmarek at May 08, 2007 02:42 PM (pP/fk)
16
"The Left, as always, is in league with genocidal maniacs who want to destroy America."
I think you forgot your medication again, Hey.
Maybe it's under your tinfoil hat.
Posted by: Angryflower at May 08, 2007 03:39 PM (Bss6w)
17
This is one more example why I can not stand moon god worshipping POS, and the State Department allowing any old moon god worshipper into this country.
Look at France, and England if you want to see our future. It is a fight to the death, and I suggest we all get ready. That includes lefturds, but I bet they will just get in the way.
ROPMA
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 08, 2007 04:19 PM (ZOc4K)
18
The dems visiting syria,claiming the war is lost.Shortage of vehicles nat guard can't help disaster areas clean-up,VT massacre,GOPs now threatening GW if there is no visible improvment in Iraq.6 arrested for trying to kill US military personel is there no end!Our gov. can't even send money to our brothers in harms way for vehicles,and the proper gear to protect themselves,without setting time lines and pork bellies!We can't even decide how to guard our own borders without riots,or sending nat guard to help with no bullets or orders not to shoot!Nobody in either party can decide what side of the fence they want to stand on.They voted for the war now maybe I was lied to so now I won't let them have any money to finish the job we satrted!I cannot imagine the message this political mess is sendingto our troops.I know the insurgency,iranians,syrians,al-qaeda,jihadists are all eating this up!The only thing we can be sure of is our soldiers are turning this thing around,their whooping ass,taking the fight to the scumbags in afghanistan and iraq with or without the best gear,vehicles etc..and without the 110 percent support from the american people and the politicians!So at the end of all your rants give our brothers in harms way a big oooooorrrrraaaaahhhh!!! Semper Fi
Posted by: referman at May 08, 2007 04:53 PM (1WnDa)
19
I wouldn't not include George McGovern in citing extreme leftwingers out to harm America, although he was wrong on Vietnam. He was a B24 pilot in WWII and bombed the Ploesti oil fields, the most heavily defended area under Nazi control. For this alone he dwesrves praise, not ridicule.
Posted by: Frank Dukes at May 08, 2007 05:41 PM (eUB0a)
20
One thing we can all agree on is when the troops do come home, they are gonna be EXTREMELY pissed off. And they should be.
Posted by: Justin at May 08, 2007 10:55 PM (NiTuu)
21
BEHEAD THEM!!
(and any LIB that repeats the 'religion of peace" crap again..)
Posted by: WALKER at May 09, 2007 11:45 AM (bNtSQ)
22
Got THAT off my chest...
In a more serious thought, isn't it time we have an open discussion as to whether allowing large numbers of muslims into our country is a good thing?
Yes I know most are good people, yada, yada. But if 5% are not, and you let a million in, that is 50,000 bad people. Also disturbingly obvious to see in Europe of second and third generation Europe-born muslims being radicalized.
Can we at least hold the discussion without the left shreiking we are hate filled fascists?
Can we agree to restrict the most hate filled of Imams coming here or teaching in our prisons?
Can we agree to deport swiftly muslims here illegally? (such as the 3 here).
Truth is, many of us don't view Islam as a religion, it is a socio-political movement, and a fascist, sexist, homophobic and murderous one at that.
Posted by: WALKER at May 09, 2007 11:57 AM (bNtSQ)
23
My LAST comment, promise (unless anyone wants a reply)
Consider two scenarios that could easily have happened:
- The clerk never provided the tip, and this tragedy occurred (I've been to Fort Dix, virtually all the soldiers there are unarmed.)
- Prior to that, one or more of the 3 illegal aliens was pulled over for a traffic violation, or some other minor civil event brought him into contact with authorities. Consider the practice of New Jersey and other liberal states & localities (the noble sounding "sanctuary cities") NOT to establish a person's citizenship for routine traffic or criminal violations. They would have been let go. Just as political correctness let one or more of the 9/11 hijackers go after a traffic stop.
We WILL suffer attacks like this planned one at FT Dix, and worse, until we as a country wise up (and grow up).
Posted by: WALKER at May 09, 2007 12:07 PM (bNtSQ)
24
Ok why noone in the world don't have curage to say that thise guys r Albanians from KOSOVO?!?!?
Posted by: watcher at May 09, 2007 05:00 PM (Bpthw)
25
Ok why noone in the world don't have curage to say that thise guys r Albanians from KOSOVO?!?!?
Posted by: iam at May 09, 2007 05:01 PM (Bpthw)
26
All that I heard today for the 6 people who wants to do that in that base was shocked,otherwice the mans terrorists are not Kosovars they are kosovo enemies Kosovo will be always part of USA, USA is Kosovar's home even sombody wants to destroy that image.The guys( idiots) who wants to do that they tried to kill the future of the world and make sure nobody can stop Kosovo to be independent and Usa with all others who wants the best of the world ,we need to kill all terrorists,even people who dont like the right way for Kosova .GOD BLESS USA Kosova will be always with USA they gave us a freedom and food.
Posted by: God bless USA at May 09, 2007 06:39 PM (WRD7B)
27
To all you serbs here and antialbanians i will tell you one thing: we will never lay a hand on any american in the name of religion or whatever.Those dimwits that we are talking about are not albanians,they were born in macedonia and migrated to the states when they were very young so they dont have any albanian feelings.From more info that we get on the news these guys got 2 grams of brains.We all know what serbs think of the US after all serbia was the one backing up saddam during his reign with weapons and god knows what.USA was,is and will always be the Albanians second motherland no matter where they are.
Posted by: FreeKosova at May 12, 2007 11:10 PM (DtKs4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 04, 2007
Because You Never Know When Global Warming Is Going to Fly Into a Building
A
ship of fools, if ever there was one:
Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.
The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
"Our job is to steal secrets," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this," he told The Washington Times. "There's no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats."
Democrats, who outnumber Republicans on the committee, blocked the minority from stripping the warming language from the bill.
Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, said the climate-change study is one of several shifts his party has made to intelligence policy.
"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."
As Ace notes, Reyes, the chairman of Intelligence Panel, is the man that doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, or or which al Qaeda is, and had no clue at all about the nature of Hezbollah.
Of course, he belong to a Democratic House whose Speaker doesn't even know that al Qaeda is in Iraq, so that bit of incompetence is sadly par for the course.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:29 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Polar bears are MUCH more advanced than we ever realized. They're perfecting flying iceberg technology at this very moment.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 04, 2007 04:55 PM (6UoPI)
2
Idiots. I said we needed and
intelligent debate about global warming
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at May 04, 2007 08:43 PM (Z3kjO)
3
Stupid Democrats, missing an opportunity to add "a provision to direct an assessment of the effects of " on National security.
What effect will Ethanol have on National security? We must fund this research at ANY cost!
What effect will socialized healthcare have on National security? Gun control? Etc.
And the thing is, they CANNOT lose their support! It can't happen. I don't know why, I can't explain it, but they just won't.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 05, 2007 10:32 AM (fEnee)
4
(A little HTML boo-boo there, "fill-in-the-current-religion" should be where a single quotation mark appears.)
Posted by: DoorHold at May 05, 2007 10:34 AM (fEnee)
5
Hey, I apologise in advance if this is a bit off topic. I was looking for a contact form on your site but didn't see one.
Anyway, a while back I got kind of pissed off flipping between the O'Rielly Factor and Democracy Now, not so much because the had such completely different views, but rather because they both claimed to be objective. So I started coding a website that would allow people to be called out on biased opinions, where the community would decide which ideas get the most recognition. Well, after 6 months of work, today IÂ’m finally launching it: http://VocalNation.net
Anyway, IÂ’m placing the control of this site, and control of the debate, largely in the hands of those who read this message. I'm starting things off by just picking a handful of conservative and liberal blogs to mention this to so that it will at least start off with a good balance of opinions from either side. I'm hoping that you could mention the site to your readers? After that, I guess it'll be the side with the strongest arguments that'll take control dictate what direction the conversation goes. May the best side win.
Also if you don't want this post on your site, could you please at least let me know so I can add another blogger in your place to keep it balanced to start off with?
Thanks - Tony
VocalNation.net
Posted by: Tony at May 05, 2007 08:11 PM (3x7Cl)
6
Bob, you have got to take these things more seriously! You do realize of course that big tornado in Kansas wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't repealed the Kyoto treaty. Don't you? Of course you do. I added a link to my 2007.05.06 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup
Posted by: Bill Faith at May 06, 2007 03:39 AM (n7SaI)
7
How about a study of the effects of the Democratic Party on national security?
Posted by: buddy larsen at May 06, 2007 05:14 PM (lCS93)
8
Reyes needs to know that the centuries old conflict between Shia and Sunni is actually the chief cause of global warming. A billion Muslims fuming and seething and spewing out all that hateful rhetoric is warming the planet.
Posted by: Zhombre at May 06, 2007 09:29 PM (MP8Dx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lost War Updates
A. J. Strata reports that al Qaeda in Iraq has lost its
second caliphate capital in recent months, first losing their stronghold in Ramadi, and now, their base in the Tahrir neighborhood of Baqouba.
The U.S. military has confirmed that not one, but two senior al Qaeda commanders were killed north of Baghdad earlier this week.
Bill Roggio notes the continued expansion of the Anbar Salvation Council, and notes that one of the original tribes that supported al Qaeda in Iraq has flipped and joined the war against the terrorists. Ten Sunni tribes have turned to war against al Qaeda in the last month alone.
And last but by no means least, Lawrence Kaplan notes what most of us have long known: Congressional Democrats approach the Iraq War from a position of willful ignorance.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:28 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
While good news is good news, I have to wonder why it's taken four years to get to this point.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 05, 2007 10:36 AM (fEnee)
2
DoorHold, we had to wait for the Iraqi army to reach critical mass in size, training and finally ability.
Can't have a clear and hold strategy without the large number of troops. We never had enough. So, that strategy could not be pursued. Is that reason enough not to go into and then remaining in Iraq? Answering that question may be better left to more informed minds.
Posted by: CoRev at May 05, 2007 11:57 AM (0U8Ob)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iraqi EFPS Prove to Be Duds; Iranian EFPs Still Lethal Threat
Several month's ago, Andrew Cockburn attacked President Bush and the United States military in the Los Angeles
Times, for the President saying that the EFPs --explosively-formed penetrators--being used successfully against American military forces in Iraq with a great degree of effect
came from Iran:
PRESIDENT BUSH HAS now definitively stated that bombs known as explosively formed penetrators — EFPs, which have proved especially deadly for U.S. troops in Iraq — are made in Iran and exported to Iraq. But in November, U.S. troops raiding a Baghdad machine shop came across a pile of copper disks, 5 inches in diameter, stamped out as part of what was clearly an ongoing order. This ominous discovery, unreported until now, makes it clear that Iraqi insurgents have no need to rely on Iran as the source of EFPs.
The truth is that EFPs are simple to make for anyone who knows how to do it. Far from a sophisticated assembly operation that might require state supervision, all that is required is one of those disks, some high-powered explosive (which is easy to procure in Iraq) and a container, such as a piece of pipe. I asked a Pentagon analyst specializing in such devices how much each one would cost to make. "Twenty bucks," he answered after a brief calculation. "Thirty at most."
Cockburn's venom and naked partisanship were obvious. What wasn't so obvious is that Cockburn didn't know what he was talking about.
While crude Iraqi machine shops can manufacture crude components, the EFPs they can manufacture are no serious threat to American armor.
Iraqi fighters have been making their own versions of the weapons, but so far none has been effective against U.S. forces, Odierno said. The Iraqi-made projectiles, using brass and copper melted on stoves, have failed to fully penetrate U.S. armor and are more likely to be used against Iraqi forces, whose vehicles often have thinner armored protection than U.S. vehicles, U.S. military officials said.
"We have not seen a homemade one yet that's executed properly," Odierno said, adding that such weapons are not a major concern "as of yet."
In short, Cockburn's assertion that "EFPs are simple to make for anyone who knows how to do it," betrays his ignorance of the difference between theory and practice. Theoretically, anyone could presumably find plans to build an EFP, but without the right materials, training, and manufacturing equipment, they could not make an EFP with the capability of defeating advanced armor.
It is not as simple to manufacture a competent EFP as Cockburn and others have mislead. Someone should alert the media, but then again, the majority of the media doesn't really care.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:33 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I learned how to make EFPs about 30 years ago during a tour with the 5th Special Forces Group at Ft. Bragg. I can personally attest to the fact that they are not difficult to make, but very difficult to make properly. My demo sergeant (lots of experience) made one that worked fine. Mine didn't.
For what it is worth.
Posted by: Old_dawg at May 04, 2007 11:25 AM (iW7Hp)
2
Isn't it ironic that the "Bush lied" crowd has no use for the truth?
Posted by: DoorHold at May 04, 2007 12:09 PM (Qm2t0)
3
Iran is Shia. The insurgents in Iraq are largely Sunni. Why would Iran arm the Iraqi Sunni, who are killing both Americans and Iraqi Shia?
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 04, 2007 01:41 PM (xy13o)
4
Lex, why dont you ask Iran.
Posted by: Justin at May 04, 2007 02:19 PM (NiTuu)
5
I do think it is ironic how the "Bush lied" nuts seem to lie constantly.
Posted by: Justin at May 04, 2007 02:20 PM (NiTuu)
6
Lex, I'll try to keep long words out of the answer.
Iran wants to get America to withdraw and leave them a free hand. Iran is well aware that the best way to do that is to have a steady stream of violence that Fifth Columnists like yourself, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Murtha, and NBC/ABC/NYT/CNN/WaPo, et al, can use as evidence that America is "losing" because of George Bush. They are also aware that it doesn't have to be American troops, or Iraqi troops, who might be able to defeat them, that get killed; any dead body will do, and civilians are eaasier targets. Finally, they are aware of the classic terrorist maxim: "You have to win every time, we only have to win once." The more hands they have to cause mayhem, the more likely that the once will happen.
As for getting Iraqi Shia killed? The Persian Iranians consider the Iraqi Arabs to be subhumans anyway, and you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Look up the terms "pawn" and "cannon fodder."
Why would the Sunnis work with the Iranians? Hey, Iranian money spends, Iranian explosives blow up real good, and even if they can't take back over, maybe the Iranians will need Kapos.
Posted by: SDN at May 04, 2007 02:22 PM (rtOk5)
7
Iran is Shia. The insurgents in Iraq are largely Sunni. Why would Iran arm the Iraqi Sunni, who are killing both Americans and Iraqi Shia?
What does Shia Iran support Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Salafist Group for Call and Combat, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Kurdistan Workers' Party, and other Sunni terror groups?
Why is Baathist Syria one of the biggest supporters and weapons conduits of Shia Hezbollah?
Why are Baathist Syria and Shia Iran even allies?
Sectarian boundaries do not trump the will to power of rouge states. Iran has no abiding feelings for any of the Sunni terrorist groups it supports, but these groups, like the Sunni insurgents and Shia militias in Iraq, are cost effective ways of asserting Iran's foreign policy.
Iran has long been thought to have been targeting for control the oil fields of southern Iraq, and the best way for them to obtain control is to destabilize the Iraqi government and force a U.s. retreat from Iraq. With a failed state, there are virtually dozens of ways Iran could assert power into southern Iraq, but first, they have to make sure Iraq's democracy fails.
Towards that end, they will continue to supply any group in Iraq that will wage war against the Iraqi government or coalition forces. If they can get Sunni insurgents to fight for them it is a bonus: they can attempt to inflict casualties, without have to take casualties to either themselves, or casualties the Shia militias loyal to Iran that it would need to assert control if Democrats manage to force a retreat.
In the simplest, most Machiavellian terms, if you have two enemies willing to kill each other, why not give them the means to accomplish their goals?
Wars have been fought for thousands of years this very way, for this very reason. It is a textbook definition of a proxy war.
Now, that answers the first part of your question, but doesn't precisely address why they would give weaponry to Sunnis if those weapons could be used against Shia.
First, most of the weaponry Iran can be tied to conclusively has been targeted squarely at Coalition military forces, from HS50 sniper rifles, to EFPs and MANPADs (man-portable SAMS). These weapons are used almost exclusively against American and British forces.
Other, less precise weapons, such as mortars and RPGs, are primarily targeted at government forces. Sure, their government forces are largely Shia, but Iran cannot take over Iraq if Iraq's government holds. They're willing to break a few eggs, especially when it can be blamed directly on Sunnis.
Iran is cynical and smart enough to also know that if their Sunni recipients further a sectarian war, or initiate rounds of sectarian attacks and counterattacks, that also ultimately benefits them.
All of this is a very detailed explanation, but it boils down to this: Iran will fund any terrorist group that it thinks might work for their best interests.
Is that clear enough of an explanation?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 04, 2007 02:25 PM (9y6qg)
8
Justin:
Lex, why dont you ask Iran.
Why don't you try to say something that isn't dumb? Also, investigate the key between 'semicolon' and 'enter' on your keyboard. Maybe you'll learn something.
I do think it is ironic how the "Bush lied" nuts seem to lie constantly.
I said nothing untrue, so in fact you lied. Also Bush has something like 30% approval, so who's the nut?
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 04, 2007 04:31 PM (xy13o)
9
SDN:
NBC/ABC/NYT/CNN/WaPo, et al, can use as evidence that America is "losing" because of George Bush
You are such a fruitcake. You've believed for four years that everything is swell in Iraq. Victory is always six months away. Then in six months Bush announces yet another new approach and as usual Iraq continues to worsen. You believe that there's plenty of good news to be had, only a cabal of communist atheist jihadi news agencies refuses to let us know what it is.
Yet check
out. Does the Times really support jihad as much as you think? Elizabeth Bumiller and Judith Miller were way into the war, at least when it looked promising.
"The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today."
--NYT, May 2003
No, your real beef with the MSM is that it doesn't support your fantasy world well enough. Twenty years hence you will still be mad that we didn't win this war.
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 04, 2007 04:57 PM (xy13o)
10
CY:
What does Shia Iran support Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Salafist Group for Call and Combat, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Kurdistan Workers' Party, and other Sunni terror groups? Why is Baathist Syria one of the biggest supporters and weapons conduits of Shia Hezbollah?
Simple, because those groups aren't at war with Shia. Christians look to their own sect foremost, but support Christianity in general over other religions. And so it is with Muslims.
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 04, 2007 05:03 PM (xy13o)
11
Also Bush has something like 30% approval
And congress's approval was what again?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 04, 2007 05:05 PM (6UoPI)
12
PA: what are you trying to prove? Congress has a low approval rating, therefore...?
I suspect you fancy your comments to be clever and effective. They're peculiar and useless.
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 04, 2007 07:07 PM (xy13o)
13
"I suspect you fancy your comments to be clever and effective. They're peculiar and useless."
Oh, Kettle, thou art Black.
---Pot.
Posted by: SDN at May 04, 2007 09:20 PM (rtOk5)
14
Oh, and Lex, 20 years from now I expect to be a survivor and veteran of "The Long Beach CA Crater War" and "Civil War II". Both of them will have the same root cause, you and your Fifth Column hamstringing the sane, and will unfortunately result in the massacre of 90%+ of the Muslim World and the fortunate 100% elimination of the aforementioned Fifth Column.
Posted by: SDN at May 04, 2007 09:26 PM (rtOk5)
15
SDN: You paint a clear portrait of yourself in few words. You take solace in your guns, and long for the day that you will be important for having them. You don't wish to think about it but you know you are marginal. Urban liberals have more influence and lead fuller lives than what you can reasonably expect. Your guns will never have the slightest effect. You will not enjoy an armed conflict with liberals. You could participate in a war with jihadis, but evidently you prefer to leave that to others.
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 04, 2007 11:47 PM (xy13o)
16
PA: what are you trying to prove?
That as bad as the executive team is, your favorite legislative team is faring worse?
Its kind of a perspective thing -- but liberals aren't about perspective are they?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 05, 2007 07:36 AM (6UoPI)
17
Guys, I am
really getting tired of the personal attacks.
And Lex, you also happen to be wrong about the various Sunni groups supportedby Iran being at war with Shia. Sunni, by definition, view Shia as heretics. They will kill them as they have the chance, they just have other priorities at the moment.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 05, 2007 09:26 AM (HcgFD)
18
PA:
as bad as the executive team is, your favorite legislative team is faring worse
I hope you are just pretending not to understand this, but one never knows. Bush's signature is the Iraq War. Bush polled at 30% approval as per the Wall Street Journal.
You counter that congress polls even worse. I don't know if that is true. If it is, what have your proved? Our congress is a large body which contains many different points of view. This excerpt from a Pew poll demonstrates one source of discontent the public has regarding congress:
Do you think Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far or not far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or are they handling this about right?
Too far 23%
Not far enough 40%
About right 30%
Don't know/Refused 7%
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 05, 2007 12:49 PM (xy13o)
19
PA:
"Meanwhile, the new Democratic-controlled Congress is getting relatively high marks. And 55 percent actually trust Congressional Dems on U.S. policy in Iraq, far more than the 32 percent who trust their commander in chief."
Since that came out Bush has fallen to
28%, the lowest since Carter in 1979.
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 05, 2007 10:01 PM (CCLRE)
20
CY:
Lex, you also happen to be wrong about the various Sunni groups supportedby Iran being at war with Shia. Sunni, by definition, view Shia as heretics. They will kill them as they have the chance, they just have other priorities at the moment.
It sounds like you're saying that Iraqi Sunni and Shia are not battling each other. That can't be what you mean though. Can you rephrase that?
Posted by: Lex Steele at May 05, 2007 10:05 PM (CCLRE)
21
CY,
Had to do some traveling.
When I refer to Lex and his ilk as Fifth Columnists, I am not name-calling in the sense of spewing random insults. I am saying that their behavior fits the definition of a Fifth Column as formulated in the WWII era: a group of people, supposedly citizens of a country, who act in ways that support the efforts of an external enemy.
Likewise, my referring to R. Stanton Scott and John Murtha as "Benedict Arnolds" has a specific historical context: a member of the military who at one time served with distinction, but who is presently acting against the country's interests either by direct treason or by being what Orwell referred to as "objectively pro-fascist" and crippling the country's efforts to fight its' enemies. This can be for any number of reasons from feeling unappreciated or unrewarded(Arnold's original motivation) to self-promotion to political advantage to simple stupidity. I'm far less concerned with the motive than I am with the results.
Posted by: SDN at May 09, 2007 07:57 PM (TIw0n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 03, 2007
Two Arrested Smuggling Iranian EFPs in Sadr City
Oui?
US forces arrested two Iraqis suspected of smuggling weapons and armour-piercing explosives from Iran in a dawn raid Thursday into Baghdad's Shiite slum Sadr City, the military announced.
The arrests came ahead of a possible first meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and United States since 1980, at an international conference on the future of Iraq in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
"The individuals targeted during the raid are suspected members of a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq," the military said.
The statement said the network was also training Iraqi militants in Iran.
The CENTCOM release this story was based upon is here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
Pressure
The leader of the Islamic State of Iraq
has been killed:
US and Iraqi forces have killed the head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), an umbrella group of Sunni insurgents which includes Al-Qaeda, Iraq's deputy interior minister said Thursday.
Minister Hussein Ali Kamal said the insurgent leader known as Omar al-Baghdadi was killed in western Baghdad. "His body is under the control of the interior ministry. His body has been identified," he told AFP.
Separately, US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris Garver said the military would hold a news conference later on Thursday to announce a "recent success against a senior leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq."
Unlike the claimed but unconfirmed killing of al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who was reportedly killed earlier this week in a firefight with one of a number of Sunni tribal militias formerly aligned with al Qaeda, who have now joined with Coalition forces, al-Baghdadi's body has been claimed and apparently identified.
For the roundup of this story, go to Pajamas Media.
al-Baghdadi's death is properly categorized as a "big fish;" al-Masri, as Dan Riehl noted, once declared allegiance to al-Baghdadi.
This news comes as Evan Kohlmann notes that the al Qaeda coalition continues to fracture:
In the wake of the recent and very public rift between the Sunni Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) and Al-Qaida's "Islamic State", yet more cracks are suddenly beginning to show in the unified jihadist coalition that Al-Qaida has been trying to assemble in Sunni regions of Iraq. Today, the IAI--along with factions from at least two other predominant Sunni militant groups, the Mujahideen Army and the notorious Ansar al-Sunnah Army--have officially announced the formation of their own separate political coalition: "The Reformation and Jihad Front" (RJF). This new front would seem to be a direct challenge to the authority of Al-Qaida's "Islamic State" and is said to enjoy support from Sunni Islamist circles (like Ansar al-Sunnah) which have, in the past, worked closely with Al-Qaida.
Kohlmann goes on to note that while the RJF is no ally of American nor Iraqi democracy, it poses a significant political threat to the future of al Qaeda in Iraq, perhaps even more significant than the formation of the Anbar Salvation Council.
Marc Lynch notes of the RJF that:
While the language is typically religious, the focus is exclusively Iraqi, and says nothing about wider global jihad.
As a result, the group should have more appeal to the various Sunni insurgent factions that are more nationalistic in their goals, and thus lessen support for al Qaeda in Iraq.
"Divide and conquer" was the original aim al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency, as they hoped to capture popular Iraqi support and use that support against the Iraqi government and the Coalition. It will be very interesting to see how the media decides to note the now obvious fact that it is al Qaeda and it's aligned Sunni groups that are fracturing, factionalizing, and turning on one another.
Update: A "Twofer?" Over at Hot Air, Bryan is running with a Washington Post article where General William Caldwell has confirmed that Muharib Abdul-Latif al-Jubouri, al-QaidaÂ’s information minister, has been killed, a fact confirmed by DNA tests on the body:
Caldwell said the U.S. does not have the bodies of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State of Iraq, or Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, and doesn't know of "anybody that does."
He said the military had conducted numerous operations against al-Qaida in Iraq in the last six days.
Al-Jubouri was killed while trying to resist detention in an operation about four miles west of the Taji air base north of Baghdad early Tuesday, and the body was initially identified by photos, then confirmed by DNA testing Wednesday, he said.
Meanwhile, Bryan notes that Iraqi media sites such as Aswat al Iraq are still claiming al-Baghdadi's death, and even purport to have video of the body.
Who is right?
IraqSlogger isn't sure, but states that CNN is claiming that al-Baghdadi and Al-Jubouri may very well be the same person. I couldn't find that claim at CNN, so the statement only adds to the confusion.
The overall facts remain the same, regardless of which al Qaeda leader specifically died: al Qaeda in Iraq is being hunted, cornered, and killed or captured, and the pace of such operations seems to be increasing.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:37 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 737 words, total size 5 kb.
May 02, 2007
Risible Tensions
If al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri was killed in Iraq in a clash yesterday as reported, it appears that tribes that are part of the Sunni Awakening will get
credit for the kill:
A local leader from a village near Taji, Muhammad Fadhil of Nibaie, said he heard explosions and gunfire from Monday night through Tuesday morning. He believed the sounds came from clashes between al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters and men from the Falahat tribe and a tribal coalition known as the Anbar Salvation Council. Fadhil also said U.S. and Iraqi forces eventually cordoned off the area.
The Anbar Salvation Council is a Sunni group formerly loyal to al Qaeda and the insurgency that has since joined forces with the Iraqi government and coalition forces. The tribal militias have fought pitched battles against al Qaeda, and has killed or captured hundreds of terrorists over the course of the past few months.
CNN, as befitting their political bias, arrives to the party late:
Reports of fighting between al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni militants surfaced Tuesday, the latest hints of rising tensions between the two allied groups.
Other reports have emerged this year of tensions between Sunni fighters and the Sunni-dominated al Qaeda in Iraq, particularly from Anbar province, long a favored turf for indigenous Sunni insurgents and foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq from Syria.
The Awakening has been fighting tooth and claw against al Qaeda for months in battles involving hundreds of men at a time, (see the Roggio links above, and feel free to Google others), and CNN sees "hints of rising tensions?"
One can only wonder what maelstrom would force them to actually use the word "combat."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:53 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Arrives to the party late? You are too kind, CY. CNN has only now encountered the dust kicked up on the trail to the party.
But it is nothing new for a news organization, after ignoring a subject for period of time, to then write about it as though it is a new and current development. How could the organization write it otherwise without also suggesting they are incompetent at providing timely coverage.
Posted by: Dusty at May 02, 2007 10:20 AM (GJLeQ)
2
We need to change the course in Iraq!!
Oh wait, it already is. Actually it doesnt count because Bush and Petraeus are the ones responsable.
What scares the Dems the most? Undeniable progress in Iraq during the presedential election in 08. They would still have to try and undermine it and denounce it as unwinnable, and they would pretty weak and stupid. Must I remind you that the American people have a tendancy to change their opinions in a flash. History doesnt look kindly upon cowards.
Posted by: Justin at May 02, 2007 02:14 PM (NiTuu)
3
Heres a little tidbit from thh UK's Guardian regarding the leader of AQI, reportedly killed in Iraq a few days ago:
"Al-Masri, an Egyptian, assumed the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq after the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a US air strike in June 2006. The US government in 2005 set a $50,000 reward for al-Masri's capture, later raising it to $5m.
Security experts say he became a terrorist in 1982 when he joined Ayman al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. He probably entered Iraq in 2002, before al-Zarqawi, and may have helped establish the first al-Qaida cell in the Baghdad area.
He had manufactured explosives in Iraq, particularly car and truck bombs, helped foreign fighters move from Syria to Baghdad, and overseen al-Qaida's activities in southern Iraq."
Hmm, Al-queda cell in Iraq in 2002, interesting...
Posted by: Justin at May 02, 2007 02:20 PM (NiTuu)
4
The Guardian must be mistaken -- Iraq was flying kites in 02'.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 02, 2007 04:30 PM (CPya5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 01, 2007
Yon: Desires of the Human Heart
A two-part photo essay from embed Mike Yon, embedded with I-4 Cavalry (Fort Riley, Kansas) at COP Amanche, Baghdad:
Part I
Part II
Mike writes of this photo, taken from Part II:
"I asked the woman above if she was the mom, but the camera had already captured the answer."
Cute Kid. Beaming Mom. These are among the people I worry about when I see Harry Reid declare the war "lost." If Reid and others are allowed to force a loss, what kind of future can this mother and child have?
No photo touches me more than these Iraqi children, particularly the girl in red, that Yon photographed last year in Iraq near the Iranian border.
Something about her haunts me. Perhaps it is her strength and sadness, or her passing resemblance to my niece.
I want these children to have a future that is better than their nation's horrific past decades or bloody present. I simply don't understand how we can help provide anything like that by declaring they aren't worth it, and running away.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:56 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This picture always gets to me and it is because of that girl in red. I see her hope and her strength; the former in her clasped hands and the latter in her clenched jaw.
Posted by: Cindi at May 01, 2007 06:28 PM (asVsU)
Posted by: ray robison at May 01, 2007 09:37 PM (aW8TG)
3
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy
I Support Democracy In Iraq
or if you are interested in a more animated version:
I Support Democracy In Iraq - The Animation
Posted by: M. Simon at May 04, 2007 04:20 AM (KD5c/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
al-Masri's Rumored Death Shows Fruits of Sunni Awakening
The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was reportedly killed in a firefight today between al Qaeda and what has been described as a battle
between insurgent groups by the
Guardian, or by
local Sunni tribesmen according to CNN. The account remains to be confirmed, and it must be noted that similar accounts in the past have been incorrect.
Both claims of who carried out the attack could be accurate, but the CNN account, which describes the site of the conflict as "a bridge in an area under Sunni tribal control," sounds like a description consistent with the Sunni tribal militias aligned with the al-Anbar "Awakening" movement, as described by combat filmmaker and blogger JD Johannes in this recent entry to his blog at Outside the Wire:
Driving along the four-lane highway from Habbaniyah to Ramadi there are the usual coalition check points, Iraqi Army Outposts, markets, black market gas stations and Police Stations.
But, off the main highway, on the access roads leading back into the Euphrates canal country, every half mile, gun men wearing Keyfahs and wielding AK-47s man road blocks--and they are the best allies we can have against the jihadists.
[snip]
Last Summer few Sheiks, notably around Ramadi flipped to the coalition and government side of the conflict.
The tribes sent levies to the Police Academies in Baghdad and Amman, Jordan. They have also started taking matters into their own hands with some men from each clan and tribe defending their villages.
What I saw in Husabayah Jawal was not the Iraqi Police or the Iraqi Army, but the beginings of the end of the insurgency in Iraq.
Whether they are the Sons of Al Anbar, Sawa, TAA, the militia or the Tribal Neighborhood Watch, tribes and clans across the Euphrates river valley are taking charge of their own security with back up from the Marines.
[snip]
The Iraq variant of the Home Guard emerged last year as many of the top sheiks, some who had opposed the coalition and some who had a foot in both camps saw that AQIZ was not following through on their promises and that the coalition was following through on their promises.
The other point that flipped the Sheiks is the simple fact that no one except for the hard core jihadists want to live under Sharia law--which is all the jihadists have to offer.
The Sheiks, sub-sheiks, former military leaders including a hero of the Iran/Iraq war who lived in the Khalidiayah area began the process of standing up neighborhood watch check points.
The neighborhood watch is supported by the Police District and Mayor. The Marines keep a close eye on the volunteers who man the check points but have no official involvement in their activities.
The Anbar Awakening is allowing one of the key aspects of counter insurgency operations to begin--population control and control of movement in and out of areas.
This firefight may have either been "red-on-red" fighting between an insurgent group and al Qaeda, or it could be the action of a tribal militia loyal to the "Awakening" and the Iraqi government.
If the former is correct and the firefight was a "red-on red" between insurgent groups, then it shows more evidence of a widening, lethal rift between various elements of a Sunni insurgency, an insurgency that has been showing increasing signs of fragmentation for months.
If the firefight was between al Qaeda and local Sunni militiamen loyal to the Awakening, then this battle is part of a trend that shows the vulnerability of al Qaeda and mobile insurgents to the "Home Guard" militias, local groups loyal to Sheiks aligning with the Iraqi government and coalition forces that know on sight whether or not people belong to a certain area. It is also worth mentionthat both accounts could very well be true, as these are not exclusive states of being with Sunni tribes in a state of flux.
This battle is one of many that has occurred in Iraq in the past few months as the Sunni Awakening that started last summer continues to bear fruit, further fracturing the insurgency as they turn on al Qaeda and the increasingly fewer number of Sunni tribes that see fighting the Iraqi government and coalition forces as a viable strategy.
While civilian and military casualties continue to mount in Iraq, the essential nature of the conflict has radically evolved, a fact under-reported in a world press that can understand simple concepts like body counts, but cannot or will not understand the underlying motivations and actors.
The original Sunni insurgency in Iraq that fought to overthrow or undermine the fledgling Iraqi government is not dead, but it is certainly, unequivocally, in the process of dying.
Today, the body counts continue to be high, but those dying in the string of horrific string of car and truck bomb attacks over the past few months are not being killed by popularly-supported Sunni insurgents, but instead, are being attacked by elements of al Qaeda. 80 to 90-percent of those carrying out suicide bombing in Iraq are not Iraqis, just as so many of the lethal EFP attacks being carried out against Coalition forces are the work of Shias that receive training and weaponry in Iran. Foreign actors are increasing taking the lead from the locals in the war against the Iraqi government.
Why does this matter?
Native-borne insurgencies are among the toughest of conflicts to bring to a successful resolution. The French learned this hard lesson in Vietnam and Algeria, as we learned that lesson in Vietnam. But native insurgencies can be defeated, as French Lt. Col. David Galula demonstrated in the areas under his control in Algeria, and as the British showed in the Malaysian Emergency.
Insurgencies that receive more external support than internal support are far more vulnerable to be defeated, for obvious reasons. Without internal support, foreign fighters and insurgent groups run a far greater risk of being identified, fixed, and destroyed. As a result, the current situation in Iraq is more winnable than it was a year ago.
Those critics that maintain that the war in Iraq is "lost," or that refuse to admit that al Qaeda or Iran are the key, driving forces behind the remaining Sunni and Shia militias and insurgent groups, are deluding themselves. Saying that "nothing has changed" is not only an abdication of responsibility, it is an abdication of reality.
Sunnis tribesmen engaged with al Qaeda this morning, as they have time and again and with increasing frequency over the past year as the Awakening grows. Allah's important influence aside, they are also undoubtedly switching sides because Iraq is their home, and they want to be on the winning side when this war concludes. Many have determined that the Iraqi government and their coalition allies must and will be that winning side.
Much as changed in Iraq since the Sunni Awakening began last summer.
We have a radically new strategy for fighting the war, being implemented by a new commanding general, under a new Secretary of Defense. We have crucial new allies, as tribes that formerly supported the insurgency have rebelled against it to form a new political party and re-engage in the political process, even as they hunt and kill al Qaeda. These Sunni tribes have engaged the Iraqi government and coalition troops as allies, declaring:
"We have decided that by helping you," he said, "we are helping God."
The war, it seems may be in the process of being won in Iraq in mid-2007, even as war critics declaring this war "lost" are stuck in time, in a much different Iraq War of early 2006.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:58 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1290 words, total size 9 kb.
122kb generated in CPU 0.0308, elapsed 0.18 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.1578 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.