BF2S Forums Is al-Qaeda on the Run in Iraq?

The stakes in Iraq then become questions of moral responsibility and regional stability.

Holy fuck, somebody from CNN gets it.

Up is down, down is up, black is blue...

I thought they were called The Anbar Salvation Council.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/507401/am … new_allie/

Holy shit, some of the Muslims have figured out who the enemy is.  It took how long?  CameronPoe will be disappointed.

Major_Spittle wrote:

Holy shit, some of the Muslims have figured out who the enemy is.  It took how long?  CameronPoe will be disappointed.

"So let's try to put the good and bad news together. It's not impossible that the Iraqis will eventually remove the al-Qaeda cancer from the Sunni insurgency—which would put a serious crimp in President George W. Bush's current rationale for the war, that we're there to fight al-Qaeda. But it's also probable that without a political deal, the sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and Shi'ites will intensify—and eventually explode when the U.S. military pulls back from Iraq. The stakes in Iraq then become questions of moral responsibility and regional stability. "How many Srebrenicas do you have the stomach for?" a senior U.S. official asked me, referring to the Bosnian massacre by the Serbs in 1995. Given the antipathy of the American people for the war, I'd guess the public reaction would be, "Those Arabs are just a bunch of barbarians, and we could never tell the difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis anyway." A more pointed question is, How many massacres of Sunnis will the Saudis and Jordanians have the stomach for? How hard will Iran press its obvious advantage with a Shi'ite-dominated government in Iraq? The answers to those questions are completely out of American hands. They rest with the Iraqi Shi'ites. Eventually even battered children have to grow up."

No.
We have to let these people grow and use tough love when needed.

That means bombing the fuck out of whatever group that decides to massacre the other or steal oil money.
And otherwise leaving them alone.

SCIRI splits with Iran, swears loyalty to Sistani
(Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq)

"BAGHDAD - The leader of Iraq's largest Shiite political party on Saturday called for a "security agreement" to be negotiated between Iraq and U.S.-led forces to outline the authorities of each side in a further indication of growing frustration over America's role in Iraq.

    Iraq’s most powerful Shi’ite party will make key changes to its platform, party officials said on Friday, in a move that will increasingly align it with Iraq’s top Shi’ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani…

    Under the new platform, the party would get its guidance from the Shi’ite religious establishment as before, but more from Sistani, SCIRI officials said.

    That would mark a shift from SCIRI’s current platform, which says the group gets its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070512/ap_ … te_party_1



The question of the hour is whether they’re dropping the “R” and naming Sistani, who allegedly opposes Iranian-style rule by cleric, their spiritual leader because they’ve sincerely embraced democracy (Reuters says they’re promising to add democratic language to their new platform) or whether it’s a PR ploy to appeal to voters’ patriotism by “Iraqifying” the party’s image. Their main rivals, the Sadrists, are noisily nationalistic and, as I’ve mentioned recently, are reaching out to Sunnis to make themselves look even more so. The more “Iraqi” they become in the public’s mind, the more “Iranian” SCIRI becomes by contrast, which will do it no favors come election time. So one possible explanation is that they’re simply trying to keep up with Sadr by doing the same thing illegal immigrants did last year after the first few marches when they switched their Mexican flags for American ones.

Another possibility is that Sadr himself might be starting to earn a reputation among Iraqis as an Iranian tool and SCIRI’s trying to capitalize by outflanking him and remaking itself as the “real” Iraqis. David Satterfield said yesterday that the U.S. knows Sadr’s been in Iran since January; if he knows, some Iraqis must know too and word’s probably long since gotten around. There have been reports, too, of the Mahdi Army (or at least certain parts) reorienting itself towards the mullahs as well as rumors of a military training camp attended mostly by JAM militiamen outside Tehran. Maybe that’s why Sadr’s suddenly decided to talk to the Sunnis: he’s trying to scrub the Persian fingerprints off of himself. If so, it leaves SCIRI with an opening to shed its image as Iranian stooges and present itself as the true Iraqi patriots, leveraging Sistani’s religious authority among Shiites in the process. That could come in mighty handy later, not only in the elections but if and when SCIRI and the Sadrists finally square off and each side starts looking for recruits.

Or, of course, it could all be a big ruse concocted by Iran to make its puppet look a bit less wooden and more like a real boy, possibly to give it more leverage with the U.S., even while it continues to pull the strings. Or it could be a genuine break between the two, a logical reaction by SCIRI to some behind-the-scenes decision by the mullahs to make Sadr their pawn of choice given his cult of personality inside Iraq and larger military force. No telling for sure, but these Iraqi Kremlinology posts sure are fun. (For me, not for you.)

I'm just passing the basics along right now. I'll add later, this could be huge.

Let me explain this better.

Sunni Factions Split With Al-Qaeda Group

Sadr's party says split from Iraq govt inevitable

This could be good (For those who have an ounce of optimism left in them).

ATG wrote:

No.
We have to let these people grow and use tough love when needed.

That means bombing the fuck out of whatever group that decides to massacre the other or steal oil money.
And otherwise leaving them alone.

I have two words to make them more Peaceful:  Disneyland Iraq

They could even remake the Disney them song to:

When you wish upon a Cresent,
Makes a difference who you Isn't.
Christians, Hindus, even Jews,
God hates you.

They could wear Ayatollah ears.

Last edited by Major_Spittle (2007-05-23 20:55:21)

Major_Spittle wrote:

When you wish upon a Cresent,
Makes a difference who you Isn't.
Christians, Hindus, even Jews,
God hates you.

They could wear Ayatollah ears.

Last edited by ATG (2007-05-23 21:02:01)

The middle eastern groups of muslims and countries are equally diverse as the western countries and groups, we as a coalition argue and disagrees of course the muslims and the terrorists groups does the same.

What strikes me is the similarities with Europe in the early 1900`s as to what is going on in the middle east pr date, that area is reshaping itself and should do so without western influence interfering imho.

thing is though - al-Qaeda were never in Iraq in the first place, it was only through the turmoil that was released because of the removal of Saddam that they are there like moths to a flame in the first place.  Now GW Bush has stated that "Iraq" was where the fight would be brought to al-Qaeda. So where do they go if they are not in Iraq? also is driving out the 500 or so Foreign al-Qaeda militants that great a cause for celebration? good luck with the 20 thousand Sunni insurgents..

while America may be spoiling to pick a fight with Iran (backed up by China & Russia), unless I miss my guess i'd say that Pakistan would be the easiest target to de-stabilise for al-Qaeda militants..