Dec 04 2007

al-Qaeda Running Out Of Troops In Iraq, Uses Child Soldiers

Published by at 9:26 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

There is a famous picture of Hitler in Berlin at the end of the war reviewing ‘the troops’. The problem was Germany was out of troops, so Hitler sent the children of Germany – you can see the picture here.

History does repeat itself. Previously I noted there has been a significant reduction in replacement fighters coming into Iraq. Well it seems this lack of fighters in Iraq has pushed al-Qaeda into the same insane end-game that Hitler played out before the Third Reich fell:

More and more youths, some only 10, are being influenced by Al-Qaeda to join the insurgency in Iraq, US generals said Monday, adding that 2,000 members of the jihadi group are being held in Iraqi prisons.

The number of juveniles in detention had jumped from 100 in January to about 950 now, many of them roped into the anti-American insurgency by the Iraqi affiliate of Al-Qaeda, the officers said.

Al-Qaeda is targeting the “young and the most impressionable. I equate them with drug dealers,” said Major General Douglas Stone, head of the US military’s detention operations in Iraq.

“It is a real concern. If I can break their back, I would do it,” he told AFP at his office in Camp Cropper, one of the two US-run prisons in Iraq.

The jail near Baghdad airport holds around 4,000 of the nearly 26,000 people detained by the US military in he country. The rest are in Camp Bucca in the southern port city of Basra.

Of the 4,000 prisoners in Camp Cropper, 950 are juveniles, some as young as 10. Most are aged between 15 and 17 and are being held for offences ranging from “planting bombs to picking up a gun and firefighting,” said Brigadier General Michael Nevin of the US military police.

What will the proud Muslim world if Islam think about a group of bloody thirsty thugs sending children to do a warrior’s job? And what if that job results in mass killings of fellow Muslims? It would seem to me al-Qaeda is being as decimated in the Middle East as Nazi Germany was in Europe at the end of World War II. Our media may be too blindly biased and ignorant of history to notice (this is what happens when you get a cheap college degree), but the fact the media doesn’t grasp what is going on doesn’t mean it is not going.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “al-Qaeda Running Out Of Troops In Iraq, Uses Child Soldiers”

  1. gwood says:

    Great post, I agree that this development indicates the end of al-Qaida in Iraq.

    That said, I believe the long trek toward capitulation for al-Qaida in Iraq began about two years ago, with the reduction in suicide events, replaced by remote detonations. Remember the Amman, Jordan bombings? A higher-up commander and his wife were sent, indicating that the supply of willing martyrs was dwindling even then.

    Many bombings during that time were attributed to less-than-willing suicide jihadis, as there were reports of chains and steering wheels, drivers of bomb-laden vehicles blown up via remote detonating devices, etc.

    Because the increased manpower fits the leftist complaint of “too few troops”, I believe increased manpower component of the surge has been over-rated. The changes in rules of engagement and strategic goals on the part of our military, combined with the change in the attitudes of Iraqis toward al-Qaida have led to what seems to be a sea-change due to the surge, when the trajectory toward defeat for our enemy began some time ago, IMHO.

  2. stevevvs says:

    What will the proud Muslim world of Islam think about a group of bloody thirsty thugs sending children to do a warrior’s job?

    They would be extremely proud that their child chose martyrdom. There is no higher honor. They are taught this in Schools through out the Middle East. All you need to do to realize this is simply buy a Copy of Obsession, or Islam: What the West Needs To Know, they are full of video of little 5-7 year old boys and girls saying this. There is also video of Middle Eastern Talk Shows, where the host asks parents about this. The parents HOPE their children choose this.

    You see, in Islam, this sends you to a better place: Paradise. Once your there, everything you could want or imagine is given to you. The parents want this for their children.

    When Nonie Darwish’s father, who was a high ranking Officer in the Egyptian Military, was killed in Millitary Operations against Israel in the 1950’s, he was given full Martyr Status. The Government, after his funeral, came to his little childeren and asked point blank, Which one of you kids is going to become a Martyr to avenge your fathers death? And this was in the 1950’s, not today.

    but the fact the media doesn’t grasp what is going on doesn’t mean it is not going.

    And lets face it, the vast majority of American are oblivious as to what is going on as well.

  3. AJStrata says:


    yeah, I remember it because I posted on it coming to the same conclusion. The signs of al-Qaeda’s pending defeat have been there for months. But the dems were committed to failure. Apparently they succeeded – they have failed miserably.


  4. AJStrata says:


    Martyrs don’t kill fellow Muslims. Yes, if they were targeting the infidel it might be pride, but killing Muslims is a sin.

  5. stevevvs says:

    From the inside cover of Nonie’s book:

    ” When Nonie Darwish was a girl of 8, her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. A High Ranking Egyptian Military Officer stationed with his family in Gaza, he was considered a “Shahid” a martyr for Jihad. His Posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim Society.”

    So much to learn, When do you think it would be a good Idea to start?

  6. stevevvs says:


    Martyrs don’t kill fellow Muslims. Yes, if they were targeting the infidel it might be pride, but killing Muslims is a sin.

    No, AJ, your wrong. I’ll be back after shaving with proof. So much to learn…

  7. AJStrata says:


    I know you are catching up and researching this – but don’t pretend others have never read anything about the region or the conflict. Enjoy YOUR learning.

  8. stevevvs says:


    It is allowed if you pronounce takfir on the ones you’re killing
    — that is, you declare them apostates.

    takfir — the practice of branding fellow Muslims non-Muslims, and thus lawfully to be killed. This practice is used promiscuously by modern jihad groups, and it is that that Saudi authorities…

  9. stevevvs says:

    I’m enjoying my TEACHING!
    I don’t do any of this to put anyone down,etc. Just trying to pass on what I took the time to learn. And I only do this because it is important to know just what we are dealing with. I think this is a war that the vast majority really don’t know. I can tell you, I was sure ignorent of Islam, it’s texts and tenants, it’s deception, etc.

    So, please, I’m not trying to shame anyone. I was in the same shoes your in. I’m just trying to teach. I understand people with wives and kids can not devote the time I do to this everyday.

  10. stevevvs says:

    And Please, don’t ever leave Islam. It’s sort of like the line in Hotel California: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

    “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims” (Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17).

    You can read what Muslims had to say about this recently”

  11. stevevvs says:

    Time to cook for today. I hope this was helpful and informative. Take Care Folks! Enjoy your day!

  12. stevevvs says:

    Sura 4

    Verses 92-3 forbid Muslims to kill fellow believers intentionally; if one kills a Muslim accidentally, he should free a Muslim slave. How is it, then, that Muslims can kill each other with such apparent impunity in Iraq and elsewhere? They pronounce takfir on one another – declare the opposing group to be unbelievers – despite the gentle discouraging of this practice in v. 94. V. 95 says that those believers who stay home and risk no injury are not equal to those who wage jihad.

    Passages such as this, which are often overlooked in discussions of the Qur’anic view of jihad, demonstrate definitively that what the Qur’an means by jihad is not an interior spiritual struggle, but warfare. Why should anyone fear death or the fury of the unbelievers, or shorten his prayers in view of an impending attack by the unbelievers (v. 101), in a spiritual struggle? How can one kill a fellow Muslim by accident in a spiritual struggle?

  13. stevevvs says:

    Sura 9

    Verses 1-12 free the unbelievers from all obligations they may have incurred in treaties they concluded with the Muslims, and all existing treaties are restricted to a period of four months (vv. 1-3).
    This restriction comes with the warning that “Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him” (v. 2), which the Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains as “humiliating them in this world by having them killed, and in the Hereafter, by [sending them to] the Fire.” The announcement is made during the Hajj that “Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans” and call them to repent and accept Islam (v. 3). This refers only to those pagans who have violated the terms of their treaties with the Muslims; the other treaties will be honored to the end of their term (v. 4). As-Sawi says that this is an exception to the four-month limit, giving to the Damra tribe, “who still had nine months of their treaty remaining.”
    Then comes the notorious Verse of the Sword, containing the injunction to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (v. 5). This is, understandably, a verse much beloved by present-day jihadists. In a 2003 sermon, Osama bin Laden rejoiced over this verse: “Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood.”
    Ibn Juzayy notes that v. 5 ABROGATES “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates 47:4’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers. According to As-Suyuti, “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” – that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam.”
    Ibn Kathir echoes this, directing that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view commonly put forward by Muslim spokesmen in the West today — that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” – that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with 2:191.
    If the unbelievers convert to Islam, the Muslims must stop killing them. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them.” Ibn Kathir: “These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.” Qutb says that the termination of the treaties with a four-month grace period, combined with the call to kill the unbelievers, “was not meant as a campaign of vengeance or extermination, but rather as a warning which provided a motive for them to accept Islam.”
    Asad, however, says that v. 5 “certainly does not imply an alternative of ‘conversion or death,’ as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume.” He says that “war is permissible only in self-defence,” in accord with 2:190, and that “the enemy’s conversion to Islam…is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their ‘desisting from hostility.’ He points the reader to verses 4 and 6 for further elucidation; we will pick up with v. 6 next week.
    Finally, it is noteworthy that, according to As-Suyuti, the jurist “Ash-Shafi’i took this as a proof for killing anyone who abandons the prayer and fighting anyone who refuses to pay zakat [alms]. Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun [unbelievers].” Likewise Ibn Kathir: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah.” Thus even Muslims who do not fulfill Islamic obligations fall into the category of those who must be fought. This is a principle that latter-day Salafist movements apply broadly and use frequently in branding governments that do not rule according to strict Islamic law as unbelievers who must be fought by those who regard themselves as true Muslims. This is playing out now in the Salafist revolt against Musharraf’s Pakistan, and to a lesser degree in Egypt against Mubarak and even in Saudi Arabia against the House of Saud.

    Chapter 9 of the Qur’an should be studied by all westerers. This is but a small portion.

  14. stevevvs says:

    Taking a Stand [Andy McCarthy]

    Amen, Mark. Even more than the contradictory sentences, I’m struck by the contradictory clause: “At a time when Islam is under siege from Muslim extremists …” The problem for Esposito, Voll and other self-styled moderates is that they know they can’t say, “At a time when Islam is under siege from Muslim heretics.” The Muslims in question are adherents of an extreme form of Islam. They are not heterodox. They simply don’t buy the moderate mush that the Qur’an and the Hadith do not mean what they say, or that Muslims are at liberty to ignore them.

    We keep looking past this at our peril. Does anyone ever notice that the Muslims we consider our allies are either former Muslims (see, e.g., Ibn Warraq), secular Muslims (people who maintain a cultural affinity to Islam but don’t care much about doctrine), or well-meaning reformer Muslims who either forthrightly acknowledge that Islam must be changed fundamentally (see, e.g., Irshad Manji) or rationalize that Islamic scripture does not have to be taken literally and that the bellicose passages are somehow limited to the circumstances of the Seventh Century (rationalizations that are not very compelling no matter how much we want to believe them)? No doubt these groups make up hundreds of millions of people; but they have little influence with extremists — who themselves make up not a fringe but, at the very least, tens of millions of people.

    A summation by the courageous former Muslim, Ayan Hirsi Ali, “My View of Islam (on holy war, apostasy and the rights of women),” should be required reading on this topic. (Esposito and Voll would go in her fifth category.) It would be a much better use of our time than listening to blather about how a teeny-tiny group of terrorists has hijacked a noble religion of peace. In the interim, the problem is not going away: What Islamic extremists are extreme about is Islam.

    12/03 07:00 AM

  15. Terrye says:


    Oh please, if you are going to be quoting verses and trying to say it is indicative of the entire religion, I will tell you not to suffer a witch to live.

    And besides, Christians are not paccifists. Joan of Arc was barely more than a child when she lead French troops.

    I have read Robert Spencer etc and while you might think that trying to fight or destroy or ban an entire religion is the thing to do the vast majority of Americans consider it ridiculous.

    No doubt there are elements within Islam that consider using children to kill people to be acceptable. But not all Muslims are like that and if they are, then why should we bother to help the Iraqis at all? After all the majority of them are Muslims.

  16. Terrye says:

    Should be bomb Mecca? Outlaw the Koran? What exactly should the penalty for being a Muslim be? Should we assume that all Muslims are the enemy? Where do we draw the line?