May 07 2007

Al Qaeda Targets Muslims Fighting For Freedom

Published by at 8:56 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

Al Qaeda and its sister Islamo Fascist groups are now in pitched battles against the very Muslims ready to fight for a free and democratic Iraq. The SurrenderMedia has yet to ‘connect the dots’ but the Iraqis are not so slow and are very clear about what is happening:

Two suicide car bombers killed 20 people and wounded more than 40 near Iraq’s city of Ramadi on Monday in separate attacks that police blamed on al Qaeda.

The town is home to many of the Sunni Arab tribal leaders who formed an alliance against al Qaeda last year.

“They are terrorists. They are from al Qaeda,” Thiyabi said, when asked who he thought was behind the twin blasts.

The tribal chiefs oppose al Qaeda’s campaign of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the imposition of an austere form of Islam in the areas where the group holds sway.

Recent big suicide attacks in Anbar, an overwhelmingly Sunni province west of Baghdad, have been blamed on al Qaeda.

Tribal leaders have sought to expel al Qaeda from Anbar, and have had some success, pushing some of the al Qaeda militants out, U.S. military officials have said.

This is not sectarian civil war, as the SurrencerCrats like to pretend. The Arab/Muslim street is rising up against al Qaeda and al Qaeda’s answer is to kill and kill and kill – as they did this weekend. They are Islamo Fascists in every sense of the word. They had plenty of opportunity to win over Iraqis and instead they tried to violently enslave them. And here is the result of their bloody madness:

Nonetheless, it is clear that Al-Qaeda, which currently operates under the name Islamic State of Iraq, has been increasingly at odds with homegrown Iraqi insurgent groups in recent months.

In the months that followed, the Mujahedin Shura Council, which largely comprises foreign fighters, faltered in terms of legitimacy and support inside Iraq. This faltering was part of a downward spiral that began in 2005 under al-Zarqawi, under whose leadership foreign fighters terrorized civilians, seized their money and property, and killed clerics and community leaders that opposed him.

Al-Zarqawi ignored the warnings of Sunni Islamist thinkers that his group’s actions were in violation of Islamic law and were alienating the Islamic and Iraqi communities.

The fact that al-Muhajir, like al-Zarqawi, was a foreigner who appeared willing to sacrifice Iraqi civilians in his quest to kill coalition forces, was a red line for many Iraqi insurgent groups. It was also a red line for Al-Anbar’s Sunni Arab chieftains who had once given shelter to the Mujahedin Shura Council.

The Islamic State’s insistence that Iraqi groups subordinate themselves to its hierarchy and vision only increased after November, leading to a number of documented clashes between the Islamic State and homegrown insurgent groups. When the Islamic State began targeting Iraqi insurgent leaders with attacks and assassinations, the Iraqi groups responded with vigor.

The response of insurgent groups prompted al-Baghdadi to apologize to Iraqi insurgent groups and to caution his fighters to control their behavior. At least one insurgent group, the Islamic Army in Iraq, appeared unwilling to accept the apology. Islamic Army in Iraq spokesman Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al-Jazeera television in an April 17 interview that the Islamic State of Iraq should first prove they have changed their ways before an apology would be accepted.

The military is not running from al Qaeda, they are hunting them down. Nazi Germany was not going to be defeated by the allies sitting in Paris to watch Hitler re-group and re-arm. And the same is happening in Iraq. And the military and administration is – again – being honest about what to expect on the path to eventual success:

A senior U.S. commander said Sunday that the military was bracing for a rise in the casualty rate in the coming months, as a security offensive attempts to tame the catastrophic violence and stabilize Baghdad.

“All of us believe that in the next 90 days, you’ll probably see an increase in American casualties because we are taking the fight to the enemy,” Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the Army’s Task Force Marne, told reporters Sunday. “This is the only way we can win the fight.”

Even as insurgents take aim at U.S. troops, they have stepped up their attacks on “soft” targets, especially in Shiite areas of Baghdad, in an apparent attempt to stoke sectarian warfare.

al Qaeda is clearly attacking the moderate Muslims, trying to fulfill the Surrendercrats fantasies. But while the military pushes forward, the Democrats sit around confused and paralyzed and NOT funding the military’s efforts or providing them equipment to keep them as safe as possible. Instead they are trying the impossible – to support the troops and the anti-troop left:

But now top House Democrats, sent back to the drawing board by President Bush’s veto, are floating a new proposal to meet the White House request for more war funding, and they’re looking again to Grijalva and other liberal lawmakers for support.

The new plan lacks the withdrawal dates which Bush found unacceptable, and provides two months of assured combat funds for Iraq with a second two months dependent on new congressional approval.

Whether anti-war Democrats can warm to this new idea remains unclear.

“I think there are a number for whom no timelines create a lot of ‘No’ votes,” Grijalva said. He had yet to be briefed on the new plan, he said, but remains wary of any proposal lacking a withdrawal schedule.

“At least for myself, I can’t support it,” he said. “I’m not equivocating. That’s just the way it’s going to be. And some of my colleagues that didn’t agonize over [the earlier bill] are now saying they can’t be there.”

The Dems can pass the funding easily with Rep and moderate Dem support. But they will not because they will get hurt politically. Well too damn bad. It is easier to be hit politically than to take a hit by a roadside bomb or suicide bomber with a truch full of explosives. Stop dawdling Surrendercrats and pass the funds. Our troops need them and deserve better than this.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Al Qaeda Targets Muslims Fighting For Freedom”

  1. lurker9876 says:

    Yes, our troops deserve better than the Democrats’ treatment. MoveOn is ready to “move on” without the Democrats and Republicans. Will they form a…third party? While some conservatives have identified themselves “different” from the Republicans, surely the formation of the third party can hurt both the Democrats and Republicans.

    I’ve been wondering how long Shar’iah law can last in Iraq when the Iraqi civilians have been aligning with us as well as the Iraqi police and army training with us. They’re recognizing the importance of democracy (Republic version) along with its positive symptoms. Surely, Shar’iah law can’t co-exist with a Republic democracy???

  2. lurker9876 says:

    [quote]“I think there are a number for whom no timelines create a lot of ‘No’ votes,” Grijalva said.[/quote]

    The longer they waffle on this, the more “No” votes they will get in the ’08 elections.

  3. lurker9876 says:

    As usual, the biased mainstream media, Times Online, just *HAD* to print an article about the *Republicans” defecting to the Obama camp, when it’s just a few number of Republicans AND Dawd just *thinking* that Obama just happenes to be the best Democratic nominee that he can find.

    How misleading the title and article are!

  4. lurker9876 says:

    Looks like Hagel may consider an independent presidential bid.

    Ron Paul needs to bow out. He has no chance at all.

  5. owl says:

    Our military deserves better but they are not going to get it from the Dems, MSM Army, or the Pugs that are so afraid of even saying Bush’s name (the debaters) without criticizing. Poor baby Pugs, hindsighters, unelected CiCs all giving a helping hand to Surrendercrats & Surrendermedia.

    Lurker, not only does the lying MSM Army deliberately write crap like Pugs moving to Osama, but they put out their lying poll where they gleefully announce that Bush=Carter. Livid but more livid with these splintering Pugs. They have the loyalty and spine of a flea. When all you can get from a Presidential debate is the ommission of the CiC’s name or only criticism, it makes me want to puke. I liked Reagan but in case any missed it, he made as many mistakes as W. All this crap hurts our troops.

    Drudge has the Kansas Gov saying the troops and equipment is in Iraq and therefore not available to help with the tornado. Can’t decide if the MSM Army or the Dem Gov deserves the ‘poor dear’ more.
    In 2006, Governor Sebelius was elected chair of the Democratic Governors Association.

    Oh, one and the same. I do not help them and since most of the Pug sites can’t bring themselves to say the words……I will. I am very proud that George W Bush is my President and think he has done a very good job in one of the worst times in American history. Just because the Dem’s Army has said it for so many years, so many different ways 24/7, I do not accept their lies. Bush is not incompetent and his administration is not only made up of corrupt Mexican third cousins. I think a lot of the Pug behavior is every bit as bad as the Surrendercrats. They are hurting the troops.

  6. Soothsayer says:

    Sunni Shakeup May Spell Disaster for Georgie’s Surge:

    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Iraq’s top Sunni official has set a deadline of next week for pulling his entire bloc out of the government — a potentially devastating blow to reconciliation efforts within Iraq. He also said he turned down an offer by President Bush to visit Washington until he can count more fully on U.S. help.

    Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi made his comments in an interview with CNN. He said if key amendments to the Iraq Constitution are not made by May 15, he will step down and pull his 44 Sunni politicians out of the 275-member Iraqi parliament.

    “If the constitution is not subject to major changes, definitely, I will tell my constituency frankly that I have made the mistake of my life when I put my endorsement to that national accord,” he said.

    Specifically, he wants guarantees in the constitution that the country won’t be split into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish federal states that he says will disadvantage Sunnis.

    Al-Hashimi’s cooperation with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government is widely seen as essential if there is to be a realistic chance of bridging the Shiite-Sunni divide in Iraq — one of the key goals of the Bush administration.

    With the Sunnis out of the shaky coalition, does this mean that Maliki’s Shia government will just be a rubber stamp for Tehran and the mullahs?

    Why didn’t anyone foresee this? On – nevermind – they did – but Bushco failed to heed their warnings.

  7. AJStrata says:


    If you READ what the Sunni VP said is he wants NOTHING to do with the Biden-Dem plan for Iraq. How does this hurt Bush? Is it not the SAME thing the Dems are doing? Either do it our way or we go home????

    LOL! mindless liberalism is really mindless…..

  8. scaulen says:

    Wow… can you believe it the Iraqi’s have learned politics pretty quick now that Saddam has gone. Instead of threatening to blow up markets, or oil fields they are going to filibuster. What exactly is wrong with a politician saying he will withdraw support? Maybe they can buy his approval with some pork (would Muslim nations call it pork?) maybe some cabbage subsidies and cash for updated date storage facilities???