« | »

Muslims Murder 49 More Muslims In Iraq

From those relentless defenders of the faith at the Associated Press:

String of bombings rip through Baghdad, killing 49

By Sinan Salaheddin And Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writers

April 6, 2010

BAGHDAD – At least seven bombs ripped through apartment buildings across Baghdad Tuesday and another struck a market, killing 49 people and wounding more than 160, authorities said.

The explosions were the latest in a five-day spree of attacks in and around the capital that have killed at least 119 people.

The violence, which has largely targeted families and homes, is reminiscent of the sectarian bloodshed that tore Iraq apart from 2005 to 2007 and prompted the United States to send tens of thousands more troops to the front lines. But even since that time, sectarian violence and attacks on civilians have flared in cycles, especially surrounding important events such as the election.

Iraqi and U.S. officials both blamed the latest spike in attacks on al-Qaida insurgents seizing on gaping security lapses created by the political deadlock that has gripped the country since its March 7 parliamentary election failed to produce a clear winner.

"This is blamed on the power vacuum of course, and on how democracy is being raped in Iraq," former prime minister Ayad Allawi told The Associated Press in an interview. His political coalition, Iraqiya, came out ahead in last month’s vote, narrowly edging Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bloc by just two seats…

Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, an Iraqi military spokesman for Baghdad’s operations command center, said the attackers detonated homemade bombs and, in one case, a car packed with explosives. He said there were at least seven blasts. The U.S. military in Baghdad said there were eight.

Al-Moussawi said is Iraq in a "state of war" with terrorists.

Police and medical officials said the death toll from Tuesday’s explosions was at least 49, and that women and children were among the dead. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to release information publicly.

The first blasts hit around 9:30 a.m. in the Shula area of northwest Baghdad, striking a residential building and an intersection about a mile away, according to police and hospital officials who also spoke on condition of anonymity…

U.S. military and diplomatic officials have sought to downplay the possibility that Iraq is heading back down the path toward sectarian bloodshed.

"We’re obviously concerned but we don’t see the parallels with what happened a few years ago," U.S. Embassy spokesman Philip Frayne said. "We don’t see a sectarian war breaking out again."

He noted that the Friday executions only targeted Sunnis, and are believed to be carried out by al-Qaida, which is a Sunni-based terror group.

Army Lt. Col. Eric Bloom, a U.S. military spokesman, also blamed al-Qaida for all of the attacks, which he described as "random acts of violence." …

Remember all of those media stories about how there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq? It was all a myth, we were told.

As we have noted previously, for years we got a constant diet of stories from our media’s handpicked military experts, such as this from the Washington Monthly:

The Myth of AQI [The Islamic State in Iraq]

Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military’s estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong.

By Andrew Tilghman

September 6, 2007

This scenario has become common. After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation—raw hatred between local Sunnis and Shiites—might fit the circumstances just as well. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting AQI as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq. (In July, for instance, at Charleston Air Force Base, the president gave a speech about Iraq that mentioned al-Qaeda ninety-five times.)

By now, many in Washington have learned to discount the president’s rhetorical excesses when it comes to the war. But even some of his harshest critics take at face value the estimates provided by the military about AQI’s presence. Politicians of both parties point to such figures when forming their positions on the war. All of the top three Democratic presidential candidates have argued for keeping some American forces in Iraq or the region, citing among other reasons the continued threat from al-Qaeda.

But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda’s presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.

Having been led astray by flawed prewar intelligence about WMDs, official Washington wants to believe it takes a more skeptical view of the administration’s information now. Yet Beltway insiders seem to be making almost precisely the same mistakes in sizing up al-Qaeda in Iraq

Al-Qaeda in Iraq… was founded in 2003 by the now-dead Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (The extent of the group’s organizational ties to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda is hotly debated, but the organizations share a worldview and set of objectives.) AQI is believed to have the most non-Iraqis in its ranks, particularly among its leadership. However, most recent assessments say the rank and file are mostly radicalized Iraqis. AQI, which calls itself the "Islamic State of Iraq," espouses the most radical form of Islam and calls for the imposition of strict sharia, or Islamic law. The group has no plans for a future Iraqi government and instead hopes to create a new Islamic caliphate with borders reaching far beyond Mesopotamia

How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I’ve heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."

Even if the manpower and number of attacks attributed to AQI have been exaggerated—and they have—many observers maintain that what is uniquely dangerous about the group is not its numbers, but the spectacular nature of its strikes…

But is this view of AQI’s vanguard role in destabilizing Iraq really true? …

The view that AQI is neither as big nor as lethal as commonly believed is widespread among working-level analysts and troops on the ground. A majority of those interviewed for this article believe that the military’s AQI estimates are overblown to varying degrees. If such misgivings are common, why haven’t doubts pricked the public debate? The reason is that alternate views are running up against an echo chamber of powerful players all with an interest in hyping AQI’s role…

The press has also been complicit in inflating the threat of AQI. Because of the danger on the ground, reporters struggle to do the kind of comprehensive field reporting that’s necessary to check facts and question statements from military spokespersons and Iraqi politicians. Today, for example, U.S. reporters rarely travel independently outside central Baghdad. Few, if any, insurgents have ever given interviews to Western reporters. These limitations are understandable, if unfortunate. But news organizations are reluctant to admit their confines in obtaining information. Ambiguities are glossed over; allegations are presented as facts. Besides, it’s undeniably in the reporter’s own interest to keep "al-Qaeda attacks" in the headline, because it may move their story from A16 to A1.

Finally, no one has more incentive to overstate the threat of AQI than President Bush and those in the administration who argue for keeping a substantial military presence in Iraq. Insistent talk about AQI aims to place the Iraq War in the context of the broader war on terrorism. Pointing to al-Qaeda in Iraq helps the administration leverage Americans’ fears about terrorism and residual anger over the attacks of September 11. It is perhaps one of the last rhetorical crutches the president has left to lean on.

This is not to say that al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn’t pose a real danger, both to stability in Iraq and to security in the United States. Today multiple Iraqi insurgent groups target U.S. forces, with the aim of driving out the occupation. But once our troops withdraw, most Sunni resistance fighters will have no impetus to launch strikes on American soil. In that regard, al-Qaeda—and AQI, to the extent it is affiliated with bin Laden’s network—is unique. The group’s leadership consists largely of foreign fighters, and its ideology and ambitions are global. Al-Qaeda fighters trained in Baghdad may one day use those skills to plot strikes aimed at Boston.

Yet it’s not clear that the best way to counter this threat is with military action in Iraq. AQI’s presence is tolerated by the country’s Sunni Arabs, historically among the most secular in the Middle East, because they have a common enemy in the United States. Absent this shared cause, it’s not clear that native insurgents would still welcome AQI forces working to impose strict sharia. In Baghdad, any near-term functioning government will likely be an alliance of Shiites and Kurds, two groups unlikely to accept organized radical Sunni Arab militants within their borders. Yet while precisely predicting future political dynamics in Iraq is uncertain, one thing is clear now: the continued American occupation of Iraq is al-Qaeda’s best recruitment tool, the lure to hook new recruits

Five years ago, the American public was asked to support the invasion of Iraq based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to al-Qaeda. Today, the erroneous belief that al-Qaeda’s franchise in Iraq is a driving force behind the chaos in that country may be setting us up for a similar mistake.

You see, Al Qaeda In Iraq (AKA, the Islamic State of Iraq), “has no plans for a future Iraqi government.” That’s why they have been blowing up everything they can to disrupt the Iraqi elections and their results

No, our media masters assured us that once the US forces leave, the locals would all lay down their arms and become as peaceful as Baptists.

Funny how our watchdog media don’t tell us that anymore.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, April 6th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Muslims Murder 49 More Muslims In Iraq”

  1. Right of the People says:

    “Today, the erroneous belief that al-Qaeda’s franchise in Iraq is a driving force behind the chaos in that country may be setting us up for a similar mistake.”

    They’re selling franchises now? I wonder how much they cost? 72 virgins, a camel and a goat, maybe just a few little boys. WOW!

  2. canary says:

    And then Obama went with the only a “few” less than 100 al-Qaeda left in Afganistan myth, many believing it.
    Al-Qaeda hearing Obama repeat the pull-out date in Afganistan, are just resting up.
    Al-Qaeda is so exited that Obama has our soldiers building & putting in irragation water systems, helping the drug crops (add pot to heroin). U.S. soldiers serving the monsters tea & food speaking words of hope & change, if they manage to keep from getting blown up or shot.
    The sad thing is our young soldiers believe this stuff, when it’s all they hear.
    Talk to soldiers when you can, they don’t get the news. A neighbor spent 3 tours in Iraq, & back for a year off, and has no idea what’s going on.

  3. pianogirl88 says:

    Wow…looks like the Religion of Peace has been really busy lately.

  4. proreason says:

    isolated incident. probably won’t happen again.

  5. Mithrandir says:

    We need to stand in the middle of Muslim on Muslim violence?

    We don’t want to leave Iraq because it will turn into a civil war? HA! We should be so lucky!

    The best policy we ever had was supplying Iraq with weapons so they could bomb the s*%! out of Iran back in the 80s. It’s too bad the Russians and Afghanis aren’t still duking it out, nope we had to get too much involved in that one as well.

    If only we could get the Mexicans and the French to go to war with each other…..ah my daydreams….

    • Right of the People says:

      If the Mexicans got into a war, unfortunately it would probably be on US soil since there aren’t too many of them left south of the border, they’re all here.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »