Take that Dems: Insurgent leader caught in Iraq.
By paulseale Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (76) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[UPDATE by streiff] Maybe not. Reports this morning are saying al-Baghdadi was not captured but rather some other al-Qaeda leader.
The AP is reporting that the leader of the insurgent group which calls its self the "Islamic State," Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, was caught on the outskirts of Baghdad.
The group has direct ties to Al Qeada and was set up to sustain a domestic campaign within Iraq.
Al-Baghdadi was also the head of a self proclaimed Islamic Caliphate established within Iraq by terrorist late last year.
My next of course is how this will impact the insurgency and whether cutting off its head will do any good. I hope so.
In either case you have got to be wondering if a number of Democrats are cursing at the success. By showing any progress or captured Al Qeada agents within it helps prove a point which military commanders know. The longer we stay with the new strategy and flush the bad guys out, the closer to peace and stability we get.
Read on . . .
Then again when was the last time you ever heard a Democrat mention the military and victory or success in the same sentence, let alone legislation.
...again, you will no longer be welcome here.
Nobody here has ever said that "Democratic Party=Al Qaeda," and you will not put that statement in our mouths.
If that is not linking Al Qaeda to the Dems, tell me what is.
Unless you are gettign technical and implying that the string of words "democrats=al qaeda" was not typed in the original thread, therefore I am wrong.
To say that the Democrats' do not want the Bush/Petraeus plan to be successful, that they would curse when it is, is not linking the Democrats to al Qaeda.
You are wrong for manifold reasons and in many ways.
Or are you such an authority on the region that the statement should be taken on your say so ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics.
Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq. Syria continues to provide safehaven for expatriate Iraqi Bathists and to take less than adequate measures to stop the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq.
Not just the part you like. Are you a professional journalist or merely apprenticing in distortion ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A person asked me about my claim that sectarian violence was self-sustaining, so I went and pick the part that referred to sectarian violence being self-sustaining. It is either self-sustaining, or it's not.
If we were to play that game, I would reply that the poster of the original thread stressed military success, without even mentioning that military force alone will not fix Iraq, according to General Petraeus' words today. You must know how reluctant conservatives are about talks with insurgents who have killed Americans in the past.
Also not mentioned was that Al Zarqawi's death caused no cease in violence, and the Al Qaeda-linked killed today is nowhere at the level that Zarqawi was withink the ranks of Al Qaeda.
Why didn't you include it in your original post ?
Prediction = impressive
Postdiction = not so much
Your original post was quite clear in its assertion that the violence was independent of outside influences.
As to your assertion, aside from being distraction its wrong. Al Zarqawi was killed in june 2006 and by august there was a noticeable drop in the violence
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-08-31-violent-deaths_x.htm?...
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
For those who wish to know what happened in the months other than August, this might be a good read from a Pentagon source 6 months after Zarqawi's death:
The Pentagon said yesterday that violence in Iraq soared this fall to its highest level on record and acknowledged that anti-U.S. fighters have achieved a "strategic success" by unleashing a spiral of sectarian killings by Sunni and Shiite death squads that threatens Iraq's political institutions.
Violence did decrease in February, due to the Baghdad crackdown. Not Zarqawi's death.
June 7 is the spring. But what possesses you to think that quarter year periods are the correct way to talk about his ?
The violence in the summer after his death was down.
Now fall 2006, what was happening then that might have caused AQ to go all out to create violence ? Lets see the fall months october ?? The world series, nah they would have had to attacked that and I don't think they follow baseball. December ?? Maybe the wanted to imitate the grinch, but somehow I think Ted Geissel isn't on their reading lists. November, what was happening in November that AQ violence could affect. Can't think of it for the life of me.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The second half of 2006 was by far more deadly than the first half, when Zarqawi lead AQ in Iraq activities, no matter if you look at the Iraqi Health Ministry figures or the UN figures..
I'm sorry that I don't stick to the single month of August and choose to "misrepresent" the discussion by referring to the broader Fall season or the...second half of the year (gasp!)
Don't forget that I am responding to a person who cited a single month (August) as proof that Zarqawi's death had an impact in Iraq violence. (by the way, the fact that it was spring and not fall strengthens my point, since Zarqawi's death meant nothing from Spring to Fall.
Let's see.
Zarqawi died in June, and you argue that although Al Qaeda did not feel demoralized in July (More died in July than did in June), it felt kinda down in August, but cheered up in September and following months.
And there we have it.
Your logic is summarized as follows:
"One of the three summer months saw violence decrease, therefore Zarqawi's death had an impact in Iraq violence".
Even if your flawed logic were true, Zarqawi's death would have had at best a short term impact. But it wasn't even short term. It was nothing.
From the Brookings institution
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Pretty much disputes your claim for 2006 except for the October November spike.
Would you like to try again ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You guys say: The summer saw violence decrease.
I say: No it did not.
Now look at all summer months (July, August and September).
Zarqawi died in June, and the only summer month that was less deadly that any month from January-June was August.
If we go focus on the whole second half of 2006, we can see that only December was less deadly than June when it comes to Iraqi civilians killed, with the interesting fact that December was the deadliest month ever for US troops in two years.
And I want you to tell me if you think the Pentagon source cited by the Washington Post was also wrong.
I will predict that you will attempt to isolate US troops statistics, since Iraqi civilian deaths cannot prove your point. And the graph of US casualties can only prove that Al Qaeda somehow fell asleep for 1 month or two, then suddenly forgot that their ex-leader was dead.
You read the graph without reading or understanding the notes.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Information for May 2003-December 2005 is based upon data from Iraq Body Count. We do not include entries recorded at the morgue (to
avoid double-counting) or those which clearly involve the death of Iraqi police, police recruits, or Iraq Civil Defense Forces (in an attempt to
index only civilians killed by acts of war. IBC itself removes military personnel.) The data shown in the chart are 1.75 times our IBC-based
numbers, reflecting the fact that estimates for civilian casualties from the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior were 75 percent higher than those of
our Iraq Body Count-based estimate over the aggregate May 2003 – December 2005 period.14 During this time, we separately studied the
crime rate in Iraq, and on that basis estimated 23,000 murders throughout the country.
Starting in 2006, we have found it is no longer practical to differentiate between acts of war and crime. Our estimates since January 2006 are
based upon the numbers published in the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, “Human Rights Report: 1 May–30 June, 2006” and subsequent
reports. This data combines the Iraq Ministry of Health’s tally of deaths counted at hospitals with the Baghdad Medico-Legal Institute’s tally
of deaths counted at morgues. As a point of comparison between the two charts, we have found that the numbers we present for 2006
based on the UN (which include crime) are approximately twice what the estimates would be using the our methodology for the IBC
data (not including crime) for the same time period.
Care to go again ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But was reading these lengthy notes fundamental regarding this discussion?
How do these notes prove that Zarqawi's death decreased violence in Iraq?
What you are reading is that Iraq has a crime rate and people die because of crime. I would no more expect Zarqawi's death to drop the crime rate in Iraq than I would expect it drop the crime rate in DC.
But just from the report things that can be definitely assigned to insurgents
Attacks on oil/gas infrastructure and personnel
June 13
July 8
august 7
Sept 2
No trend there
US troop fatalities ? Can we just stipulate on that seeing as you didn't want them included ? Oh lets include them
68 in june trending straight down to a low of 49 in september.
Bombings (Usually not a criminal enterprise and an AQ specialty)
Peaks in july 1161
and trends straight down to october at 651.
Seeing as there is a planning lag for bombing not inconsistent.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If the same methodology was used throughout 2006, and crime rate was included, then subtracting crime rate from the equation would not change the order of deadliest months for that year.
I love magic x+y=5 whats x ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I thought you would somehow show that crime rate was so much higher in the second half of 2006 compared to the first half, that its isolation would rearrange the graph in such a way that the post-Zarqawi months would end up being peaceful compared to the pre-Zarqawi months.
But it looks like we are both missing the x and the y.
And note that Brookings said it found that it was "no longer practical" to exclude crime from the statistics. This is not surprising since lawlessness created by bombings, killing of police, and chaos in general, generate crime.
When you can't get the information you want from a graph you don't use the graph.
Thats why I used deaths from bombings. Unless you can tell me how or why there should be a significant amount of bombing in crime, I stand by it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
lies in predictable human nature, not some estimated figures which (as joliphant has just shown) are easily manipulated, misunderstood, misrepresented or taken out of context. The Islamic Fascists simply went to ground following Zarqawi's death until a new leader emerged.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
was a major effort by Al Queda to influence the Nov elections and it succeeded. Enemy Propaganda campaign do have an effect.
once again after a "Tet Offensive." They're one trick ponies and every bad guy in the World knows the trick.
In Vino Veritas
what galls me the most is that all of their plans are poll driven and based on a calloused strategy of delivering the maximum amount of failure to the Republican party. If they step up and defund the war they are afraid of the political consequences. If they micromanage the war and the US military keeps fighting but can't fight to win they think they will not be blamed. Playing politics with the lives of US soldiers is as rotten as you can get.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
They are no longer poll driven (and I suspect they haven't been for some time). They are Study-Group-Driven.
(for links, you are looking at the wrong man, but there was a front page post about it either last week or the week before that included the links you seek)
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
was coordinated by not only AQIZ, but aslo by bad guys like Iran in an attempt to influence the elections.
or didn't they want the rest of us to know that they were linked.
From the Washington Times story
Al Qaeda welcomes Democratic victory
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Walid Phares
November 22, 2006
Seems like the secret has been out for quite a while. They are linked.
is published by AP, Reuters and various American media. It obviously has an effect on some uninformed Americans. Read the reports from Michael Yon and others and one gets a completely different picture of many events in Iraq. In many of the November election , the numbers were close. There is no doubt in my mind, that enemy propaganda gave the Democrats control of Congress.
America will not be defeated by foreign terrorists. If America is defeated In Iraq, it will be by the American leftists just as it was in Vietnam.
...and I'll give up any paper you'd like... NYT, WaPO... whatever.
Telling me that the Washington Times says "Al Qaeda welcomes Democratic victory" is like telling me Ford says "You should buy a new car."
It came from the very mouth of Al Qeada, Iran and those who wish to see us harm.
Unlike the many misrepresentations and lies we see in the ComPost and what not.
And who says it came from them... the Washington Times?
We're they THERE when the collective mouth said it and, if so, why do they have such access?
This is the same Washington Times (publishers of Insight Magazine) who also suggested Obama studied at a Madrassa?
Ah, the Washington Times.
Outside of the Washington times. The article(s) were posted on Drudge at one time I believe - but it was not just the wash times.
thanks for playing.
But part of being rational is being able to overcome them.
abc news count ?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html
Of course you could have googled this yourself before going off on it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you gave up all the papers that use the times news wire.
Of course you weren't making that offer in good faith were you ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Nice try with the talking points.
If you ask people who are there on the ground and Iraqis them selves you get a completely different answer.
Al Qeada is stirring the pot and is responsible for trumping up much of the sectarian violence, just as Iran is by supporting Al Sadr's band of merry men.
As for Democrats - they are the ones who's objectives are the same as Al Qeada and the jihadist - for us to leave before the job is done.
Are they not calling for a withdrawl of our forces before the job is done? Are they not looking to dismantle our armed forces in an effort to "slow bleed" the system to a point where we cannot fight in Iraq?
Any good news from Iraq which shows progress is bad news for the Democrat's plan to pull out and Al Qeada's over all plan to install an Caliphate. It is that simple and it is based on their words, not mine.
Thanks.
They were already asked about the situation in Iraq by the US State Department through a poll it conducted, and most Iraqis responded saying they wanted Americans out ASAP.
You are posting on a Republican web site. The Republican Party does not have the majority in the Congress. If you want Americans out of Iraq ASAP you should be talking to Democrats. Democrats are in power, and they hold the power of the purse. You are wasting time trying to argue this cause to us. Talk to Democrats. chop chop.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
But it doesnt jive with the people I talk to who live in Iraq.
Why dont you talk to people who live there like Omar over at iraqthemodel.blogspot.com or sooni (who i personally interviewed).
Your reponses tell me I hit a nerve tonight. A giant nerve.
Truth hurts, doesnt it?
The moral of the story is that you cannot curse at victorys and have the same goal as Al Qeada and the insurgents and not be called on it.
If we were ever victorious in Iraq it would mean that Bush was ultimately right and would vindicate him and put Republicans back at the forefront of foriegn policy. Democrats cannot afford that and it is why they are casting their lot with antiAmerican peace activist, Al Qeada and insurgents in Iraq. By trying to force us to pull out before the November 2008 election - and more importantly - before the job is done they are trying to emulate the mid seventies. Our national security and the lives of Iraqis be damned.
Both are true and are the ultimate goals of the Democratic leadership. That is the truth, plain and simple.
It is all about reliving Vietnam for these senile delinquents.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
What you don't understand is: The Dems don't care.
All they care about is bringing Bush down, even if it means bringing the USA down. So great is their seeting hatred for the current president, they don't care if we're making progress in the GWOT.
But there are days when I wonder if we are going about this in the most efficient manner. An old friend of mine is always upset with the president on this. He insists that the response after 9/11 should have been swift and sub launched.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But, unfortunately, political realities being what they are and were...
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
By the way, why should anyone care if the Nevada debate was cancelled? They're going to have so many debates anyway. Fox certainly doesn't need the ratings! Besides, I thought Ailes' joke about Obama / Osama was pretty darn funny.
his participation. Why wouldn't it care that the debate will not take place?
There was a discussion earlier about this subject.
It was one of Nancy's 100 hours laws - Republicans and conservatives are prohibited from having humor. You must have missed it.
I don't see any exaggeration in an American meeting with the enemy during time of war, adopting the enemy positions and promoting those positions to others. Especially, when the American stands before Congress and admits what he has done. It's a crime. One of the few actually spelled out in the US Constitution. It's found in Article III, Section III.
That is the third or fourth bit of good news I seen on this site today. It seems that things are looking up.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
The dems have been pulling out all the stops to spin things. There are times when I am uncertain about these things, its a complex world occasionally something that looks pleasant isn't.
If the dems are upset though its always a good thing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
and has since the fall of Saddam. Problem is...The reporting of good news regarding Iraq does not support the story-line (quagmire - failure - BushLied™) manufactured by the partisan press and would be detrimental to the advancement of liberalism.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Something you have posted that I have read that I can agree with!
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
that you haven't read much of what I've written over the past two-years since I don't post a lot of blogs, although many of my comments are rather lengthy and well-documented. I'm unapologetically conservative, and the advancement of conservatism is part of Redstate's stated mission.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
But I always find us arguing when I respond to one of your posts or you to one of mine...
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
A review of our blog history since Sept. 2005 shows that neither of us have participated in the discussion on any of the blog entries of the other.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
But I was just talking about comments posted to other blogs...
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
The Democrats seem hell-bent on dismantling Gitmo and revealing the existence and location of our previously covert terrorist detention centers. Where are we going to put this guy? Wonder if Ms. Pelosi has room in her office?
Bono is not an Evangelical.
In WWII when Yamamoto was killed or Mussolini Hanged, Or Hess imprisoned there was great rejoicing.
In Korea when when McArthur succeeded at inchon there was rejoicing.
In Vietnam, after Nixon pounded the No. Vietnamese into signing the paris treaty with Linebacker II there was rejoicing.
Here we have democrats trying to find ways this is unfortunate.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
More moonbats in one thread than I have seen here in quite awhile.The Kosmonuts must have gotten this url.
Kosmonauts, I'm going to have to steal it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Well, ... as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens ... It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. ... there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. ... There's always hope that this [worldwide democratic revolution] might not work." -- former Clinton National Security Council member Nancy Soderberg, HERE. (emphasis added)
Which translated in plain English means that sectarian violence, and not Al Qaeda, is the issue in Iraq.
Regarding your theory that Democratic Party=Al Qaeda, the linking of Democrats with Al Qaeda is what killed the Fox debate in Nevada.