Al-Qaeda takes two cities in Iraq

Al Qaeda Forces In Iraq Take Over Fallujah And Ramadi
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA 01/03/14 11:33 PM ET EST AP

BAGHDAD (AP) — Two Iraqi cities that were strongholds of Sunni insurgents during the U.S. war in the country are battlegrounds once more after al-Qaida militants largely took them over, fending off government forces that have been besieging them for days.

The overrunning of the cities this week by al-Qaida's Iraqi branch in the Sunni heartland of western Anbar provinces is a blow to the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik. His government has been struggling to contain discontent among the Sunni minority over Shiite political domination that has flared into increased violence for the past year.

On Friday, al-Qaida gunmen sought to win over the population in Fallujah, one of the cities they swept into on Wednesday. A militant commander appeared among worshippers holding Friday prayers in the main city street, proclaiming that his fighters were there to defend Sunnis from the government, one resident said.

"We are your brothers from the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant," militants circulating through the city in a stolen police car proclaimed through a loudspeaker, using the name of the al-Qaida branch. "We are here to protect you from the government. We call on you to cooperate with us."

Government troops, backed by Sunni tribesmen who oppose al-Qaida, have encircled Fallujah for several days, and have entered parts of the provincial capital Ramadi, also overrun by militants. On Friday, troops bombarded militant positions outside Fallujah with artillery, a military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to release information.

Anbar province, a vast desert area on the borders with Syria and Jordan with an almost entirely Sunni population was the heartland of the Sunni insurgency that rose up against American troops and the Iraqi government after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. The insurgency was fueled by anger over the dislodgment of their community from power during Saddam's rule and the rise of Shiites. It was then that al-Qaida established its branch in the country.

Fallujah became notorious among Americans when insurgents in 2004 killed four American security contractors and hung their burned bodies from a bridge. It, the provincial capital Ramadi and other cities were repeatedly battlegrounds for the following years, as sectarian bloodshed mounted, with Shiite militias killing Sunni.

Finally, major Sunni tribes turned against al-Qaida, forming militias that fought alongside American troops — bringing an easing of the bloodshed in 2008, before the American withdrawal at the end of 2011.

But 2013 has been the deadliest year since, with a resurgence of violence after al-Maliki's government in April violently broke up a protest by Sunnis against discrimination by Shiite authorities.

Sunni anger further flared after authorities this past week arrested a senior Sunni politician and dismantled a months-old sit-in in Ramadi over the past week.

As a concession, al-Maliki on Wednesday pulled the military out of Anbar cities to give security duties to local police, a top demand of Sunnis who see the army as a tool of al-Maliki's rule. But al-Qaida militants promptly erupted in Fallujah, Ramadi and several nearby towns, overrunning police station, driving out security forces and freeing prisoners.

Since then, militants have dug in in the cities, setting up checkpoints in streets and waving black al-Qaida banners. Al-Maliki called in military reinforcements and sought the support of Sunni tribal fighters, who oppose al-Qaida though they still mistrust the government.

Government official Dhari al-Rishawi told The Associated Press that clashes were still underway on Friday, saying the militants remain in control of Fallujah and some parts of Ramadi. On Thursday, government warplanes fired Hellfire missiles — recently supplied by the United States — at some militant positions.

So far, casualties from the fighting since Wednesday are not known. On Friday, two policemen were killed and six other wounded when their patrol was attacked by gunmen in speeding cars outside Fallujah, a police officer and a medical officials said on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to release the information.

___

Associated Press writer Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.

muslims, only happy when killing,savages the lot of them.

The Iraqi people must be bloody thrilled.   Before we (us and America) invaded they had 98% of children (boys and girls) in education, a free health service for all and women worked.   Saddam, for all the things he did, for the majority of the Iraqi's kept control.   And they didn't have Al Quaeda.    The first time AQ got a foothold it was after the invasion and the Sons of Iraq that got rid of them, which has been documented and acknowledged by the American military.

Now, because of what the West did, hundreds of thousands of civilians have died, the place is in chaos, western companies are making a fortune rebuilding it, then giving themselves a slap on the back for doing so, and now in Fallujah And Ramadi, which is full of depleted uranium from the bombs that were dropped on them, and deformed children are being born and people are suffering from cancers never seen in Iraq before with their health service now non existant, they have the joy of having Al Quaeda, something they never had to deal with until we stuck our bloody great oars in.   The West should go down on it's knees and beg forgiveness from Iraqi children for the horrors they have put them through.

I agree 100% with that sassy

Whoopee!!!!

was that meant to sound sarky?

No, I was cheering you agreed.

sorry I took it wrong way.

No worries, easy to do with writing and not talking face to face.

nicko wrote:muslims, only happy when killing,savages the lot of them.

I'm pleased you take a position agreeing with sass, and most of us here.  I would only refer back to your opening post, above.  The killing didn't start with Muslims in Iraq.  It started in the war rooms of the US.  So I wonder if it isn't appropriate to transfer the intent of your post:

"Americans, only happy when killing, savages the lot of them."

With that revision, I agree with you.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:muslims, only happy when killing,savages the lot of them.

I'm pleased you take a position agreeing with sass, and most of us here.  I would only refer back to your opening post, above.  The killing didn't start with Muslims in Iraq.  It started in the war rooms of the US.  So I wonder if it isn't appropriate to transfer the intent of your post:

"Americans, only happy when killing, savages the lot of them."

With that revision, I agree with you.

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill it's not quite how you put it as it's the US & UK governments & not the majority of society that are only happy when killing.

It's a sad state of affairs & I sympathise with you're feelings.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm pleased you take a position agreeing with sass, and most of us here.  I would only refer back to your opening post, above.  The killing didn't start with Muslims in Iraq.  It started in the war rooms of the US.  So I wonder if it isn't appropriate to transfer the intent of your post:

"Americans, only happy when killing, savages the lot of them."

With that revision, I agree with you.

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill it's not quite how you put it as it's the US & UK governments & not the majority of society that are only happy when killing.

It's a sad state of affairs & I sympathise with you're feelings.

Well, I wasn't thinking along lines of that debate, Shady. But as you mention it...no, I don't think the problem is with the people generally. Nor do I think it's with all politicians, either. LW'ers tend not to lean toward military methods at all. But the elitist RW'ers part company with most peaceful people, to start and continue wars of their own liking. Iraq, our longest war ever, was the sole product of RW thinking and RW politicians. So, I wouldn't mind amending the statement, in fact I applaud it:

"RW Americans, only happy when killing, savages the lot of them."

why do you "sort"people into left or right? surely there's good and bad on both sides.

nicko wrote:why do you "sort"people into left or right? surely there's good and bad on both sides.

Yeah, OQ. Don't you realize it's bad to make blanket statements against large groups of people, and that we all have our strengths and weaknesses for crying out loud?

For more information that might help you avoid this mistake in the future, please see this link:

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t1547-al-qaeda-takes-two-cities-in-iraq#14337

Y'all are beating up the messenger.  It's a given, kids, RWers have caused these wars, the antagonisms with Muslims, the alienation of the entire world community, the huge deficits as a consequence, and the pending world-wide depression.

I am just a lonely analyst, pointing out the truth.  These are all the doings of RWers and Republicans.  Let's not try to avoid it.

And if you want to move in the direction of a normative philosophy, try fixing the world these elitists have handed us.  But here again, you don't fix things without realizing how they got broke in the first place.

Do be sure to click that link -- I don't think you caught my drift :D

nicko wrote:why do you "sort"people into left or right? surely there's good and bad on both sides.

Actually, you state a position that is arguable.  I do not believe in bilateralism of political values, and I reject the idea of 'both sides do it' as a false equivalency.  The RW adopts a premise that is inherently unjust: elitism.  The right presumes to know what is best for the people, and rejects core democracy.  Now, I suggest there's danger in those rocks.  Once you detach yourself from the common will, you venture on a ethical abyss.  Anything can happen.  The absence of an anchor (of democratic ethics) is dangerous, and I believe is responsible for most war and misery in our history.

True LW thinking is humanist.  This has been the case from Christ to Obama.  I'm not a believer in a god, but I am a believer in Christian Charity, from Christ to Obama.  Again and again, the same truth is verified.  The LW is the champion of the people; the RW is the champion of selfishness.

Today, in the US, we find a RW that doesn't want healthcare, democratic voting, women's rights, rights of Blacks and Hispanics, equal rights for gays and lesbians, as well as the poor/middle class.  The RW is the party of the wealthy and privileged.  They want to exploit and discard.  As such, their elitism is not oversight for the good of the people, but oversight for their own selfish ends.  Do we really need that element in our social corpus?  No!  And expressions of bilateralism, or false equivalencies, are mere cover-ups for the falsity of it all.  I know most people believe in bilateralism because it's too much work to think each and every problem through.  Supposed we used the same approach in our criminal justice system: Ahh, maybe he did it, but it's too hard to think it through...let's just say they all do it and let him go.  

Maybe that's the flaw in the whole system, that permits evil to keep reappearing throughout history...maybe we need to stress the problem with intellectual laziness in our educational system.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Do be sure to click that link -- I don't think you caught my drift :D

I clicked it and simply saw a repeat of this thread.  I mean, it's a repeat of the whole evolution of the thread. What point did you want to make?

OK, I meant to highlight nicko's first comment:

"muslims, only happy when killing,savages the lot of them."

I just thought it was pretty funny that he'd later come back with:

"why do you "sort"people into left or right? surely there's good and bad on both sides."

Because, you know, it's only bad when you sort people into groups, OQ.

Ben_Reilly wrote:OK, I meant to highlight nicko's first comment:

"muslims, only happy when killing,savages the lot of them."

I just thought it was pretty funny that he'd later come back with:

"why do you "sort"people into left or right? surely there's good and bad on both sides."

Because, you know, it's only bad when you sort people into groups, OQ.

Oh, Ok...forgive me for being dense. I'm as capable of it as the next person.    :D 

Original Quill wrote:Y'all are beating up the messenger.  It's a given, kids, RWers have caused these wars, the antagonisms with Muslims, the alienation of the entire world community, the huge deficits as a consequence, and the pending world-wide depression.

I am just a lonely analyst, pointing out the truth.  These are all the doings of RWers and Republicans.  Let's not try to avoid it.

And if you want to move in the direction of a normative philosophy, try fixing the world these elitists have handed us.  But here again, you don't fix things without realizing how they got broke in the first place.

Tony idiot Blair is a left winger & he greatly contributed to taking us to war in Iraq & Afghan.

Your blaming of the right wing for those wars is a typical left wing comment Quill.Why did someone with your obvious intellect say such a daft thing like that?

Shady wrote:Tony idiot Blair is a left winger & he greatly contributed to taking us to war in Iraq & Afghan.

Your blaming of the right wing for those wars is a typical left wing comment Quill.Why did someone with your obvious intellect say such a daft thing like that?

Well, the war was our idea, under President Bush, and it definitely originated from American conservative thinking that says we can spread democracy (and, of course, capitalism!) at the point of a gun. I always thought Blair's sin was in being too much of a wimp to stand up and say no; I never thought of anything that happened with the Iraq war as the result of left-wing ideology.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:Tony idiot Blair is a left winger & he greatly contributed to taking us to war in Iraq & Afghan.

Your blaming of the right wing for those wars is a typical left wing comment Quill.Why did someone with your obvious intellect say such a daft thing like that?

Well, the war was our idea, under President Bush, and it definitely originated from American conservative thinking that says we can spread democracy (and, of course, capitalism!) at the point of a gun. I always thought Blair's sin was in being too much of a wimp to stand up and say no; I never thought of anything that happened with the Iraq war as the result of left-wing ideology.

But the plain fact Ben is that he 'did' take us to war.

And it was a combination of his left wing ideology & religious ideology that convinced him that war was the right thing to do.

Blair was never left-wing, and I'm ashamed to say Ben, he wasn't led by Bush, he conspired with him, because he has an inflated ego and wants a 'place in history'.   I actually got to ask him how he could sleep at night after what he had done.   He didn't blink an eye and that slimey smile never twitched.

Sassy wrote:Blair was never left-wing, and I'm ashamed to say Ben, he wasn't led by Bush, he conspired with him, because he has an inflated ego and wants a 'place in history'.   I actually got to ask him how he could sleep at night after what he had done.   He didn't blink an eye and that slimey smile never twitched.

Yeah but all left wingers are like that aren't they?

Blair was never, and will not ever be, left wing. In fact, I don't think Blair ever cared what party he aligned himself with, he just chose the one that would get him into power at the the time.

Shady wrote:But the plain fact Ben is that he 'did' take us to war.

And it was a combination of his left wing ideology & religious ideology that convinced him that war was the right thing to do.

Think it through, Shady.  LW'ers have no reason to create a war.  They are not imperialists, but tend to focus more locally on the general well being.  Only RW'ers have designs--economic, as well as the Neo-Con philosophy that Ben mentions--upon world domination.

Sassy's right in part.  Blair made a noble effort, trying to be just as hawkish as Bush.  But he never convinced me...or anyone with any geopolitical analysis experience.  

Blair was an extreme example of 'lap-dogitis'.  Britons, as great as they are, and once were, cannot keep up with the wealth and power of the US.  Now, before y'all leap down my throat, I'm not saying any of you are not singularly as great as any American.  I am saying, what Blair realized, that y'all just don't have the where-with-all to withstand the onslaught brought on by the Neo-Cons and the likes of the war criminal, Richard Cheney.  The Iraq war was not the fault of Blair, but contributed to by lap-dogitis.  

That was the limit of Blair's contribution.

I'm not right in part, on this, I'm right.   Blair is not left wing, in fact he has never said he is left wing, and everything he did showed him as left wing.   The letters that are have been published between Blair and Bush shows that they both planned it.

Sassy wrote:I'm not right in part, on this, I'm right.   Blair is not left wing, in fact he has never said he is left wing, and everything he did showed him as left wing.   The letters that are have been published between Blair and Bush shows that they both planned it.

Well, you are what you do, eh?  Every time Blair and Bush spoke, Blair was panting and licking like the lap dog.  I would suggest that Blair was not planning as much as he was acquiescing.

Actually, what I would like to see is any correspondence between Blair and Cheney. Cheney was the real architect if the Iraq war strategy.

Tony Blair and George Bush exchanged voluminous correspondence prior to the start of military operations in Iraq. Now, the UK is moving to declassify details of the talks for an inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the conflict, British media reported.

The release, set for the upcoming year, is expected to include more than 100 documents, described as a collection of notes, records of 200 minutes of ministerial level talks, telephone conversations and private meetings between the British prime minister and American president, The Independent reported.

This will give the green light for the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry to publish an account of the conflict, where much attention will be given to decisions made by then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Indeed, the files could play a major part in determining Blair’s historical legacy, which critics say has been stained by the Iraq War.

http://rt.com/news/blair-bush-iraq-communication-release-977/

Should throw up some interesting conversations.

I'll look forward to reading it, for sure.

But I was serious about my Cheney remark.  Bush was not smart enough to know what was going on around him.  (That's why, late in his second term, when he found out, he and Cheney parted friendship.)  Bush was not even a good governor of Texas.  He was just an old Connecticut family name, that looked good on the ballot.  He was a Bush...his mother, Barbara, was a Tyler...old New England families steeped in politics.

As such, he was totally the string puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld.  Even his father--George H. W. Bush--cautioned him that he was being used.  The father was the one with the brains.  But lil Bush went along, following the directives of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and mainly the Neo-Cons that Cheney and Rumsfeld had brought in.

Now, that's the book I really want to read.