Jan 13 2007
Iranian Weapons Going To Shiite Militia
ABCNews is reporting that Iranian weapons material has been detected by the US Military in Iraq heading to Moqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Militia:
US military intelligence sources tell ABC News that large shipments of weapons have been smuggled to Iraqi militia over the past five weeks, including dozens of Iranian supplied EFP’s , or Explosive Form Projectiles, highly effective against armored vehicles.
The weapons were sent to Moqtada al Sadr’s Shi’a militia, known as “Mahdi’s Army” who control Sadr City, a slum in northern Baghdad with a population of 2 million.
Well, that is sufficient evidence for me. We know where 80% of the violence is happening and we know what groups are causing it. And it is time to go clean house. I had some talks with some folks who serve in the Military and one who had a brief stay in Iraq and they are just not very optimistic. I get the feeling this is the rumbling from around DC where I live, but clearly the folks on the ground do not have endless optimism. It was confirmed to me that previous rules of engagement were too restrictive and exploited by the insurgents and terrorists to attack and flee to rule-based sanctuaries (like mosques). I was told these impediments have been removed.
So now we have a test for the new strategy. We have a know problem – are we going to act and with force? Will the Iraqi government give us the green light to disband the militia’s. That is the test for me. Those militia’s need to disappear. And do not think the enemies will give up. The smartest move for them is to go quiet and try and wait our support. But Al Qaeda and their ilk have never done the smart thing. Their arrogant brutality always pushes them to stand up and attempt the most horrific acts. Now we can take them out when they stand up. Will we, is the question.
Upyer, so you can read that article and then ask what you were supposed to learn. If you had to ask, then the answer is obviously, nothing. It implies you are incapable of learning. It was long on sloganeering and short on facts. Being short is certainly preferable to NO facts, as in your argument.
I rested my case in one comment and then came up with a followup in response to another comment by you. If you are a lawyer, then you should be disbarred for ignorance.
And as a lawyer, you are answering Question A with the correct response to question B. Question A requires an answer to A.
You say the Mahdi’s aren’t terrorists, but they terrorize Iraqi citizens….. well Duh.
The actions in Iraq of the mahdi’s and el qaeda are the same, it doesn’t matter what they are doing in the rest of the world. Therefore the answer to question A is they are of the same ilk. Again…. Duh.
Okay, I read the Wikipedia article on the Iraqi Army. First of course let me point out that anybody and everybody can write info to wikipedia and you may have written all or most of that. But no matter, if the word mahdi was even in it, I overlookded it because it was of no prominence. Besides, we were talking about the mahdi army and more than 50% of it being in the Iraqi Army. You made abosolutely no case at all, in fact, that whole wiki thing would have been ruled irrelavant. You provided no evidence at all that even one member of the mahdi army was now in the Iraqi Army but was still allegiant to the mahdi army. Case dismissed.
Another trap we must not fall into is making moves now on how the board looked three years ago. Our moves now must be made according to the current reality.
Our initial move into Iraq after Saddam refused a peaceful way out and defied UN inspections the war had nothing to do with Al Qaida and Iranian controlled militias. But it does now and we have to face that reality in deciding what to do. They injected themselves into the situation so that is what we are facing.
To close our eyes to the situation and pretend like it is some video arcade game that has run us out of coins and we can simply walk way without consequense is worse than nonsense, it would be a fatal mistake that would eventually kill more people than would stabilizing the situation now.
The argument that we shouldn’t have gone in is valid. I disagree but it is a valid argument. But things are different now. Al Qaida in Iraq must be defeated and we can not allow Southern Iraq to become a “Greater Iran”. In other words, the war we fought to topple Saddam is over. This is a different one in the same place.
There is a very strong connection to Iraq and Vietnam, and America. It is the Communist party of America and the communist parties tied to terrorists throughout the world. Every day since Iraq has been bought up after 9/11, we have seen American leftists, the so-called main stream media and Democrats encouraging the terrorists, and discouraging the American public in every way possible. Sen Rockefeller, on 13 Nov 2005, Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace , stated that he :
“Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn’t it Jay Rockefeller?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
You can read the whole article :
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bennett200511141541.asp
Nor is he the only Sen visiting with Syria, the only person doing the
same thing that was done to South Vietnam, by American Leftists,
The North Vietnam military did not defeat the US military, and it could never have destroyed the South Vietnam military, without the help of the American leftists and the Democrat Congress. In the Vietnam war, we saw Walter Cronkite and the MSM, especially the
NYTs publishing the enemy propaganda, such as the Viet Cong Tet Offensive was a big win for the Viet Cong. That was false,As we know from the interview with Bui Tin:
http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm
We’re seeing the same thing in Iraq. AP can’t even produce the person they say is their source for many of their stories, which no one else even seems to be able to verify.
The results are going to be the same too, unless something is done to curb the Anti American propaganda coming from the American left.
America will once again be defeated, not by any military force, but by the American leftists.
The Communist Party never attacked our country and slaughtered thousands of our civilians. Nor am I aware of the Communist Party blowing up our embassies or residential units housing American expats.
To equate in ANY way Al Qaida with Communists is an exercise in desperation where one is so needing to create a Vietnam.
The situations are very different. Al Qaida has published a doctrine of overthrow of governments through force of arms to create a global Islamic government. There is a difference between a political ideology and a religious one. People will accept a failed political strategy and adopt a different one. People will never accept a failed religious strategy because to say their religion is flawed is worse than treason, it is blasphemy and punishable by instant death.
Al Qaida and Al Qaida related groups are fighting in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, and other place. Their goal is to overthrow the governments and install a religious government with laws that can not be modified by human beings and whose punishments were set centuries ago.
The American Left at this point is simply using the current battle for it’s domestic political gain. They believe that the future and continuing battle can be blamed on George Bush … when in fact Bill Clinton (running from Somalia and failing to get Bin Laden when he had the chance) and most importantly Jimmy Carter (Iran becoming an Islamic Republic and allowing the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, which he also did nothing about) are to blame for most of today’s problems.
The Iranians maybe Shia but they are helping fund the Sunni in Iraq, there is not doubt of that. They send in appliances to be sold for cash which in turn are used to fund the sunnis.
This is how they operate. The Sunni Shia split can be traced back to the 7th century, that does not mean that at no time in the last 1300 years they have not joined together to fight a commen goal.
Besides, we do not know what would have happened if we had not gone in. It might be worse.
They could also be supporting Kurds in their agitation in Turkey to stir up more problems for us. Have a look at the article concerning the Kurds and Turkey over at Captains Quarters.
Here’s a problem I have with the way this thing is being conducted. The President appears on TV and tells the whole world exactly what our strategy is a month before we are to carry out that strategy. That strategy was developed based upon certain conditions on the ground. The enemy now has about an entire month to change those conditions on the ground in order to moot that strategy.
As I type, terrorists are moving out of Baghadad into Diyala. We will surge into Baghdad and the mayhem will just move to a different area.
I fail to understand why we continue to tip off to our enemies weeks in advance.
Crospatch
I agree with you but the way the left keep yammering about Iraq I guess he feels they need to be shut up. But who knows what is going on behind the scenes. He has never been forthcoming with the media for good reason.
i got busy with other stuff and look at how much i missed!
enforcement:
Upyer, so you can read that article and then ask what you were supposed to learn. If you had to ask, then the answer is obviously, nothing. It implies you are incapable of learning. It was long on sloganeering and short on facts. Being short is certainly preferable to NO facts, as in your argument.
now that was another perfect example of sloganeering.
look, you referred me to an article saying i could learn from it. i read the article and told you that i didn’t see any new information in there and thought the article was mostly just a bunch of empty political slogans. i kindly asked you to specify what exactly i was supposed to learn from the article.
which triggered your vapid response. look, if i was supposed to learn some new fact from the article, then you should have no problem citing specifically what it is. you don’t know what i already know or don’t know. throwing an article at me, especially one that is written more to throw red meat at partisans rather than to give a dispassionate analysis, doesn’t prove anything. you need to explain how exactly that particular piece supports what you’re saying. i read the article and simply don’t see you point. and now you are acting like you don’t even have one. or at least not one that you are willing to defend.
if you have something to say, lay it out for me. i’m willing to listen.
I rested my case in one comment and then came up with a followup in response to another comment by you. If you are a lawyer, then you should be disbarred for ignorance.
alas, you can’t get disbarred for ignorance. but i stand by my original point. “i rest my case” means that you have said every single thing you intend to say. which is why it was funny that you couldn’t resist adding another comment.
And as a lawyer, you are answering Question A with the correct response to question B. Question A requires an answer to A.
You say the Mahdi’s aren’t terrorists, but they terrorize Iraqi citizens….. well Duh. The actions in Iraq of the mahdi’s and el qaeda are the same, it doesn’t matter what they are doing in the rest of the world. Therefore the answer to question A is they are of the same ilk. Again…. Duh.
with all due respect, i was answering the question you asked. if you want to shift the question from A to B while i am giving an answer then i can’t be blamed for that.
here’s the thing: military organizations are not generally thought of as terrorist organizations. if they were, then the u.s. army could be considered to be terrorists. after all, a rather large group of iraqis report that they feel terrorized by u.s. forces. the madhi army is a paramilitary organization. it is not a decentralized group that targets american civilians. indeed, the madhi army doesn’t target americans at all. it targets sunni groups, which includes civilians.
that is why the madhi army is not of the same “ilk” as al qaeda. it’s not not the same nationality (madhi is all iraqi whereas al qaeda is international), religion (madhi is shia, al qaeda is sunni), it has different goals (madhi: shia domination of iraq, al qaeda: a sunni caliphate), different sponsors (madhi: iran and elements of the iraqi government vs. al qaeda: multinational private donors), different targets (madhi: iraqi sunnis al qaeda: the u.s. and its allies), tactics (madhi: sectarian cleansing and battles with sunni militia vs. al qaeda: terrorist attacks against civilians in the west), etc. there is very little in common between them except for to people who can’t tell arabs apart.
Okay, I read the Wikipedia article on the Iraqi Army. First of course let me point out that anybody and everybody can write info to wikipedia and you may have written all or most of that.
true. the problem is that if i cite a publication you guys haven’t heard of, you will claim it’s some leftist propoganda. same thing if i cite a MSM article. at least that’s been my experience in other rightwing blogs. the commentators there will deny the credibility of anything that contradicts their pre-established beliefs.
now maybe you’re not like that. maybe you actually do try to have an open mind and are willing to read things that aren’t created to support the conservative cause. if you want me to come up with a MSM article instead, just let me know. or you can just google one up yourself. there’s actually been a slew of articles about infiltration of the madhi army (and also the badr brigade, the other major shia militia) into the iraqi army and policy.
i just want to note the irony of how you claim i am “incapable of learning” because i did not see what you wanted me to see in your article, and then just after that note that you cannot see what i wanted you to see in my article. does that mean that you also think you yourself are “incapable of learning”? or does a different standard apply to me than applies to you?
But no matter, if the word mahdi was even in it, I overlookded it because it was of no prominence. Besides, we were talking about the mahdi army and more than 50% of it being in the Iraqi Army.
no we weren’t. you were. read the above comments. you’re the one who raised the 50% figure and then i replied “it’s hard to get exact percentages.” get it? i never endorsed the 50% number. i don’t think anyone knows for sure exactly how many members of the iraq army are madhi. but the fact remains that there are a ton of reports about how thoroughly the army is infiltrated by the shia militia.
You made abosolutely no case at all, in fact, that whole wiki thing would have been ruled irrelavant.
someone isn’t familiar with the rules of evidence!
You provided no evidence at all that even one member of the mahdi army was now in the Iraqi Army but was still allegiant to the mahdi army. Case dismissed.
well, except for the wiki article about how the iraq army is infiltrated by shia militias, and the offer to provide further MSM articles at your request, or the suggestion that you google it for yourself. yeah, except for three different proffers (to use a legal term), there’s no evidence at all. just like how aside from your arms and your legs, you don’t have any limbs!
case dismissed
Upyer
which is why it was funny that you couldn’t resist adding another comment. If in a trial, one side rests and the other then tries to enter new evidence the rester is allowed to respond. And you say you’re a lawyer?
Actually I’m sure you’re not a lawyer, you can’t make a coherent argument. Wait, I guess you could be a non-trial lawyer.
Too good:
“But no matter, if the word mahdi was even in it, I overlookded it because it was of no prominence. Besides, we were talking about the mahdi army and more than 50% of it being in the Iraqi Army.
no we weren’t. you were. read the above comments. you’re the one who raised the 50% figure and then i replied “it’s hard to get exact percentages.†get it? i never endorsed the 50% number. ”
First, I only introduced the 50% number because you said ‘most’ of the mahdi militia was in the Iraq army and I said that “most’ was more than 50%. So use any number that denotes ‘most’ and defend that.
As I pointed out that article you linked to didn’t even have the word mahdi in the article, so I don’t see how you were using that as proof of anything.
I don’t have a problem with anyone using wikipedia, just don’t necessarily trust it. It is a good ref in many cases though.
someone isn’t familiar with the rules of evidence!
I know, I would’ve thought you would’ve learned in law school.
As far as this paragraph:
“here’s the thing: military organizations are not generally thought of as terrorist organizations. if they were, then the u.s. army could be considered to be terrorists. after all, a rather large group of iraqis report that they feel terrorized by u.s. forces. the madhi army is a paramilitary organization. it is not a decentralized group that targets american civilians. indeed, the madhi army doesn’t target americans at all. it targets sunni groups, which includes civilians.
Sounds as if you haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in Iraq. The mahdi militia isn’t carrying out terrorist strikes? Are you serious? Nationalities have nothing to do with ilk. Two like terrorists organizations are the same ilk.
Look, it’s simple as I stated. If you could read that whole article that i linked to and not learn anything. Then you are not capable of learning. I don’t know how I can state that more clearly.
And if you’re going to keep claiming to be a lawyer, I’m gonna start claiming to be a judge.
I’ve had many conversations with attorneys and most of them have two traits you seem to be lacking. The ability to apply logic and reasoning and the ability to make a coherent argument.
I said”
You provided no evidence at all that even one member of the mahdi army was now in the Iraqi Army but was still allegiant to the mahdi army. Case dismissed.
and you replied:
well, except for the wiki article about how the iraq army is infiltrated by shia militias,
and your proof that one member of the mahdi militia is in the Iraq army is?
Why did you not answer?
I accept your offer to proffer, 3 times, now do it just once. One proof of a member of the mahdi(not shiia) militia in the Iraqi Army.
As a point of order:
“and the offer to provide further MSM articles at your request, ”
As long as it’s stipulated that the Lib flagships, NYT and WaPo and LATimes are not credible witnesses. In fact if you can find anything in any of them that states that the mahdi militia is NOT in the Iraq Army, I would accept that as proof that they ARE.
Case continued.
UPyer, here is your quote for above, first post on this thread.
“oh, and the u.s. is also arming the mahdi army. most of it’s members are now incorporated into the new iraqi army”
Define the meaning of the word “most”?
Baghdad’s actually clearing out. On the FEARS the arabs have that the Americans are gonna fight.
Where do I go for information? IRAQ THE MODEL.
The two brothers, Omar and Mohammed, do a very good job of providing information for those of us not in Iraq! The American troops, by the way, are not meeting with the kinds of crap they came into contact with, in korea and vietnam. We’re just not in those jungles, anymore.
Murtha thinks he’s gonna slice and dice the budget. When the military’s budget was set last year.
So far Bush is hitting his stride. He is not behaving like a lame duck. While the media hasn’t got a handle on what is, in fact, happening on the ground.
According to IRAQ THE MODEL, two “villages,” (places without roads and toilets, so that armaments would stick out.) Have become havens for the fleeing “strangers” who had been infiltrating IN. Both through the open sunni doors. And, Sadr’s minions.
As to progress, the judicial system in Iraq is up and running, enough, that two more of Saddam’s brothers have been put to the gallows. That ain’t bad for a country known to have revolving doors at their police stations. And, where bribery works.
The other thing to notice? Both economies are doing well.
America’s economy is on a roll. And, the Iraqi DINAR goes up in value. Bet, if you tested economic facts in Lebanon, you’d find weakness.
A long time ago, those who watched Bob Hope, learned that a comedian got away with material that wasn’t particularly funny. And, he read the stuff straight off of cue cards. He still owned that stage longer than most folks.
So, that in America, watching this stuff has become routine.
And, Bush hasn’t gotten snagged by any of the hatred flung in his direction! (Who knew you’d have to add this to the list of things to look for when choosing presidential timber?)
The other day, I also read on the Internet, that the White House “still photographers” were not allowed IN during the President’s address to the nation. Because they had a habit of snapping hundreds of pictures, only to choose one that made the president look uncomfortable.
So they lost their placement.
While in Iraq, you’ll notice, the “still photographers” were also missing from Saddam’s departure gate. It’s enough information to know that you can get some things out behind and beyond the backs of those trained in journalism schools.
It also means that up ahead at the Pulitzer’s, there are fewer prizes.
Not bad for the White House, since it’s now showing it is winning on all its fronts.
One way around the mess of “nightly news shows” is to notice that people can communicate across this globe. No need to “hire professionals.”
I give Bush lots of credit for changing the rules of engagement.
Heck, just like the Internet! The Internet does not have to be a two-way discourse. And, the President doesn’t have to spit back at the idiots, like Helen Thomas, and the rest of the freak show media moguls send in to “bring questions” into the White House.
We’re just bigger than that!
Carol H, now that was excellent. I agree with at least 99% of all that you just said. First coherent sentences I’ve read from you in a week.
“two “villages,†(places without roads and toilets, ” These must be in the Southern US somewhere? right?
Still slamming the south.
But the rest of it, excellent.
Excuse me, I’m sure it’s just the senility drugs kicked in for 20 minutes and she’ll be back to normal in just minutes now.
Sounds as if you haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in Iraq. The mahdi militia isn’t carrying out terrorist strikes?
on the contrary, i have been paying close attention. the madhi army has attacked sunni groups and sunni civilians. if you want to include that in the definition of a “terrorist group” then that would mean that the u.s. army at haditha was a “terrorist group” because it attacked civilians as well.
normally military and paramilitary organizations are excluded from the definition of “terrorist group” because they field traditional forces. it honestly doesn’t matter to me whether you want to call them terrorist or not, but the fact remains that they work quite differently from al qaeda and have almost nothing in common with them except that both happen to come from the middle east.
Look, it’s simple as I stated. If you could read that whole article that i linked to and not learn anything. Then you are not capable of learning. I don’t know how I can state that more clearly.
or maybe i was already familiar with the few facts listed in the article (as i said most of it was huffing and puffing rather than stating facts), so i didn’t learn anything new for that reason.
once again, i ask you to identify which particular new fact that you claim i have missed. if you can’t then don’t tell me. but if i really have missed something obvious it shouldn’t be all that hard for you to point it out to me.
And if you’re going to keep claiming to be a lawyer, I’m gonna start claiming to be a judge.
I’ve had many conversations with attorneys and most of them have two traits you seem to be lacking. The ability to apply logic and reasoning and the ability to make a coherent argument.
it’s hard to make a coherent argument when you cite an article that doesn’t seem to say all that much and then engage in a personal attack on my intellect because i have the audacity to note that it doesn’t say all that much.
that has nothing to do with being a lawyer. there’s all kinds of lawyers out there. smart ones and dumb ones. why you think i would pretend to be a lawyer if i weren’t is beyond me. it’s not like being a lawyer would make me more believable to most people. considering how badly a lot of people think of lawyers, it is a handicap, not something i would brag about if it weren’t true.
and your proof that one member of the mahdi militia is in the Iraq army is?
Why did you not answer?
i did answer. i asked you whether you would accept mainstream articles about the situation in iraq and you didn’t answer. but hey, there are hundreds of such articles, relatively easy to find too. like this article published today:
there are tons more. (e.g. “Together, the two Shiite militias [madhi and badr] infiltrated into Iraq’s security forces thousands of people whose loyalty is to the religious parties rather than the national unity government.”) honestly, there has been so much coverage of this i’m a little surprised that you really thought that i wouldn’t be able to come up with a single example. of course the rightwing press is its own little world. if that’s your only source of info, then maybe that’s why you were unaware of this.
As long as it’s stipulated that the Lib flagships, NYT and WaPo and LATimes are not credible witnesses. In fact if you can find anything in any of them that states that the mahdi militia is NOT in the Iraq Army, I would accept that as proof that they ARE.
exactly what i was just talking about. you choose not to believe sources that have reported news you disagree with (and, incidentally, liberals hardly view any of those papers as sympathetic. all 3 endorsed the iraq war, for example). which raises the issue: if you’re gonna doubt info that is contrary to your beliefs, are you beliefs falsifiable? i mean, is there any possible way you can ever change your mind based on something you read? just curious
Define the meaning of the word “most�
most can mean more than half. but, as i also said, there are no exact counts of the number of people in militias , nor is it easy to identify which member of the iraq army is also a member of the militia. so it is impossible to prove what percentage of their members who are in the militia.
but it has been repeatedly documented that madhi members have been swarming to sign up for the iraq army and policy. indeed, some have hypothesized that sadr himself ordered militia members to sign up so that his forces could get u.s. training and arms and increase sadr’s influence on the iraqi government.
upyer
I think you’ll find the mahdi army not to be a sanctioned army whereas the US Army is.
You say they are traditional after making an argument that “most” of them are infiltrated into the Iraq army.. Come on.
The ‘main’ objective of the mahdi army is identical to al qaeda, shoot people, set off bombs, keep people terrorized, keep Iraq in turmoil. No difference.
tons more? like this? which you quoted:”and the Iraqi security forces, who they distrust and believe are heavily infiltrated by the Mahdi Army.”
Tell me, what do the words ‘and believe’ mean in that sentence?
read this: I believe I am on the moon. Do you take that as ‘proof’ that I am on the moon? Just because they distrust them ‘and believe’ are heavily…… is not the same as ‘they are infiltrated int…’
If you just have more of that type of proof, you don’t have much.
For my info. Is the Iraqi Security Forces the same as the Iraqi Army?
I don’t know, just asking.
why the double talk?
“most can mean more than half.” Can most mean LESS than half?
The point about the NYT,etc. You can’t believe what is in them. Yes, they print some true stories and they print outright lies. The problem is knowing which is which. It is especially difficult when you know that usually when they print a lie they are doing it deliberately, not inadvertantly, with the intent to mislead. It actually seems as if their intent is to bring down the US Government and to aid the terrorists. Even when the whole world points out to them that it’s a lie, they don’t correct it. In fact they usually make a half-assed lame attempt to defend it. why would you even want to quote a paper like that? It only lowers your credibility, knowing that you are using as a source, a paper who’s intent it is to mislead. Please quit trying to defend the formerly MSM. They aren’t worth it.
“considering how badly a lot of people think of lawyers, it is a handicap, not something i would brag about if it weren’t true.”
As I pointed out on the other thread, you originally threw it in as an authority, but when it backfired you are attempting to softpedal it.
I don’t question your ability as an attorney, I have now knowledge of it. If I wanted a legal opinion, I wouldn’t hesitate to ask you, but if I want an opinion on the world. That’s different.