mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

November 26, 2007

AlQaida

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 1:20 am

is alqaida beaten in iraq?

poor democrats.

this isn’t final yet. but it is sure leaning that way.

sectarian violence is on the downswing in iraq. a serious downswing.

unfortunately, the real level of violence isn’t the us troop casualty rate. after our victory over the iraqi army was swiftly completed, loyalists, anti americans, and alqaida in iraq fought against us troops head on.

they got butchered.

quickly, their tactics changed from engagement to remote atacks. chiefly remote controlled bombs of various flavors. they had some success, but chiefly had failures. and those are the words of the soldiers who have been there.

so, as us troops presented an ever more hardened target to those who would attack us, alqaida changed tactics yet again.

they sought to foment internal violence. while the us press insisted it was a civil war, sunni and shi’ite retaliated against each other for attacks odten commited by alqaida in the others name.

it has become public knowledge in iraq now.

sunni and shi’ite are fighting alqaida. they are fighting each other less and less.

us troops are experiencing some of the lowest casualty rates we’ve had. prospects look good for us and even better for iraqis. a country of some 25 million who experienced some 100,000 killed yearly by saddam are tired of alqaida.

they understand who is really setting off the bombs in movie theatres. they know who is raping their daughters and dressing it as sectarian violence.

the iraqis are killing alqaida. they are tipping us as to their location.

if the current trend continues, it will be one of the most important victories in us history. the entire middle east will begin to question the rule of their local strongmen. secularism will be in vogue in the region. women will have rights.

age old religious precepts will be questioned. and believe me, when consideriong it is islam that will be questioned, it is a good thing.

witness the success. but forget the us news. they won’t report any of it. they still think we’re losing.

7 Comments »

  1. Herr Mlah,

    Ve vant our money. Send us remittance for Euro 4,000 including late fees and fines because you are a snivelink American. Or else ve vill do somesink very unpleasant. Perhaps a visit to your door by Herr David Hasselhof vill put you in proper frame of mind, yah?

    Mit love und apfel strudel.

    Accounts Receivable Department
    T-Mobile Deutchland

    Comment by T-Mobile — November 26, 2007 @ 7:02 pm

  2. that’s just too funny!

    Comment by mlah — November 26, 2007 @ 7:32 pm

  3. mlah: “while the us press insisted it was a civil war, sunni and shi’ite retaliated against each other for attacks odten commited by alqaida in the others name.”
    Your downplaying of real sectarian violence is ridiculous. You don’t think Shi’ites wanted to do some house-cleaning (i.e. blood-letting) when they came out on top politically? You don’t think Sunnis were going ballistic resisting same? It’s true a few major terrorist incidents (esp. involving suicide bombers) were meant to trigger sectarian strife, but when it sets off Hatfield-McCoy shit, it becomes irrelevant after a while, to the participants, then their cousins, and so on, how it started. And things are still tense, at best, between the sects. PM al-Maliki and his Sunni VP are currently giving each other hell:
    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8T1JFR80

    “a country of some 25 million who experienced some 100,000 killed yearly by saddam are tired of alqaida.”
    Where did you get that killed figure? He was in power for 24 years and the very highest figure I’ve seen of the total Iraqis killed under his rule is 1 million (half of which is comprised of those lost in the Iran-Iraq war, which it would be debatable to say that HE killed, unless GWB could likewise be said to have killed our almost 4000 service people) which could only account for 10 years at your rate. The years of the Al-Anfal Campaign years (1986-89) are the only ones that come close (100,000 – 200,000 Kurds killed over 2 1/2 years):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
    The Reagan administration barely took note of the Anfal campaign. The U.S. Senate passed a bill to impose sanctions on Iraq, but Ronnie prevailed upon the Congress to drop the matter.

    “if the current trend continues, it will be one of the most important victories in us history.”
    Why did we invade, again? It sure wasn’t to defeat Sunni salafists (calling them “AQ in Iraq” implies that they were operationally part of bin Laden’s group, which the vast majority of them weren’t). If we do rout them, after 5 or more years, it will be like “Well, fuckin’ finally! Some ‘cakewalk!'” And political progress, for which the Surge was supposed to make room for, is still non-existent.

    “secularism will be in vogue in the region.”
    Snort! Our major allies in Iraq are all Shi’ite fundamentalists.

    “witness the success. but forget the us news. they won’t report any of it. they still think we’re losing.”
    It’s being reported every day. You must just be missing it because you don’t follow the MSM because you distrust it.
    Here’s a great recent NYT piece:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/20071120_BUILDUP_OVERVIEW.html

    Comment by Gus — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 am

  4. unless GWB could likewise be said to have killed our almost 4000 service people

    But Gus, that’s EXACTLY what you said in a previous discussion.

    Comment by yup — November 29, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

  5. Yup: “But Gus, that’s EXACTLY what you said in a previous discussion.”
    If you want to find that thread for us, we’ll look at what EXACTLY I said, cuz I honestly don’t remember and can’t be bothered to look and I certainly can’t take your word for it.
    In any case, if you want to assert that Saddam “killed” his troops, then you must also agree that W “killed” his. How do you plead?

    Comment by Gus — November 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm

  6. i guess that’s not in wiki? or you’d already have it linked? sorry gus. your entries in wiki are STILL not valid sources.

    Comment by mlah — November 29, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

  7. mlah: “sorry gus. your entries in wiki are STILL not valid sources.”
    I didn’t link to it to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, only to give some background. And there are plenty of links to real news sources, etc., for important issues. Unless you have a problem with some specific factoid, stop boring us with your anti-WikiPedia sentiment.

    Comment by Gus — December 2, 2007 @ 11:28 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress