Iraqi rebels fighting al Qaeda

[Guest saintjohn]

So, does al Qaeda hate the rebels for the same reasons they hate us?

Iraqi rebels turn on Qaeda in western city

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi nationalist rebels in the Sunni Arab city of Ramadi have turned against their former al Qaeda allies after a bomb attack this month killed 80 people, sparking tit-for-tat assassinations.

Residents told Reuters on Monday at least three prominent figures on both sides were among those killed after local insurgent groups formed an alliance against al Qaeda, blaming it for massacring police recruits in Ramadi on January 5.

"There was a meeting right after the bombings," one Ramadi resident familiar with the events said. "Tribal leaders and political figures gathered to form the Anbar Revolutionaries to fight al Qaeda in Anbar and force them to leave the province.

"Since then there has been all-out war between them," said the resident in the capital of the sprawling western desert province of Anbar, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisals.

Local Iraqi officials confirmed residents' accounts of events but declined to comment publicly.

The bloodshed is the latest example of a trend U.S. military commanders and diplomats have been pointing to optimistically in recent months as a sign that some militants may be ready to pursue negotiable demands through the new Sunni Arab engagement in parliament after taking part in last month's election.

On Thursday, three local Islamist groups around Ramadi -- the 1920 Brigades, the Mujahideen Army and the Islamic Movement for Iraq's Mujahideen -- also met to distance themselves from their fellow Islamists in Qaeda, joining the shift against al Qaeda led by more secular, tribal and nationalist groups.

The pan-Arab Al Hayat newspaper quoted a statement from six Iraqi armed groups on Monday announcing they had united to form the "People's Cell" to confront Zarqawi and preserve security in the Anbar province.

The statement condemned "armed operations which target innocents" and affirmed "a halt to cooperation with al Qaeda."

Both sides have distributed leaflets in the city of half a million claiming killings of opponents.

"Qaeda announces the killing of someone in the Revolutionaries and then the others announce they have killed someone in Qaeda," the resident said.

Another resident following events closely said: "The conflict is now clear between the militant groups and al Qaeda; the Anbar Revolutionaries who were formed after the attacks say they want to eliminate al Qaeda from Anbar."

SUICIDE BOMBINGS

It comes at a time when violence by al Qaeda, committed to a single Islamic state in the Arab world, slackened in Anbar and increased further east, notably in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, where the Iraqi military has alerted troops to be on the lookout for al Qaeda in Iraq's leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Nationalist militants -- some followers of Saddam Hussein's secular Baath party, others loyal to tribal chiefs -- have voiced increasing frustration with the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq; keen for a say in parliament, they warned al Qaeda not to attack Sunni Arabs going to vote in the December 15 election.

The international Islamists' suicide bombings, especially those targeting civilians, have been counterproductive, some other insurgent spokesmen have said in recent months. Though influenced by foreign leaders, most al Qaeda fighters are Iraqi.

Since U.S. forces overthrew Saddam's Sunni-dominated government in 2003, disparate Iraqi groups have made common cause with foreign Islamists like Zarqawi and their Iraqi supporters, seeking to force out U.S. troops and bring down the U.S.-backed government of Shi'ites and Kurds.

The foreign-backed groups have brought in young suicide bombers while local insurgents have provided explosives and intelligence; there are signs, however, that their goals may be diverging, with some nationalists seeing political negotiation in Baghdad as a way of attaining some of their goals.

Among victims of the killings in Ramadi, residents said, was Hameed Faisal, a university professor killed after the Revolutionaries denounced Qaeda leaders named Abu Khattab and Abu Maad. In a reprisal, residents said, a militant named Medhat Abu Mustafa was killed and Qaeda claimed the assassination of an Islamist leader, Nasser Abdul Karim, an opponent of al Qaeda.

U.S. Major General Rick Lynch said in Baghdad last week: "We are seeing examples of Iraqi rejectionists (nationalists) taking up arms and informing on terrorists and foreign fighters.

"We are seeing this in Ramadi."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060123/wl_nm/iraq_qaeda_dc

[Guest slamminshaun]

Sounds like they're starting to implode over there....they can't even trust each other.

[Guest mursa]

.....more pro american/wishful thinking BS .................next .

[Guest drlogic]

lol talk about living in a bubble............

Our country keeps voting for conservatives in larger and larger #'s since the late 90's.

Our pres. is appointing conservatives to the Supreme Crt.

We kicked as in Afghan. and Iraq.

We've helped Iraq go through 3 elections and train their new security forces (all w/in a couple years).

Our economy is just kick'n ass w/ record growth for years now.

Unemployment @ all time lows

(I could do this ALL DAY LONG if you wish)

Personally, I hope the Iraqi's start taking more control of their country. THAT'S THE GOAL! THAT'S THE MISSION!

The hardest task we have right now is deciphering between Al-Qaida transmissions, communist propaganda and DNC talking points. The 3 so closely resemble each other, that we'd hate to lump in our "patriots on the left" w/ our enemies in a post 9/11 world.

Like I said, I could do this ALL DAY LONG if you wish?

TAG, U'R IT!

[Guest JMT]

.....more pro american/wishful thinking BS .................next .

since when does reuters put out "pro-american bs"? whatever that means.

:

[Guest Chica]

what a mess! I have one word that describes these people "ignorants" ...... :

[Guest saintjohn]

pro american/wishful thinking BS

Why is a well-substantiated report from an independent news source about fighting between al Qaeda and Iraqi rebels "pro american/wishful thinking BS"? Are you suggesting that the report is untrue, that Reuters has some "pro american" bias which influenced the report, or what?

What does the article have to do with being pro- or anti- American, anyway?

[Guest mursa]

.....more pro american/wishful thinking BS .................next .

since when does reuters put out "pro-american bs"? whatever that means.

:

All i'll say is this ......

.

..Articles like this are almost identical in credibility as when this administration said that Violence was going to deminish substancially after the Iraqi voted .......and guess what

.. 3 elections have passed, and its still the same .

..don't be so gulable .

[Guest mursa]

lol talk about living in a bubble............

Our country keeps voting for conservatives in larger and larger #'s since the late 90's.

Our pres. is appointing conservatives to the Supreme Crt.

We kicked as in Afghan. and Iraq.

We've helped Iraq go through 3 elections and train their new security forces (all w/in a couple years).

Our economy is just kick'n ass w/ record growth for years now.

Unemployment @ all time lows

(I could do this ALL DAY LONG if you wish)

Personally, I hope the Iraqi's start taking more control of their country. THAT'S THE GOAL! THAT'S THE MISSION!

The hardest task we have right now is deciphering between Al-Qaida transmissions, communist propaganda and DNC talking points. The 3 so closely resemble each other, that we'd hate to lump in our "patriots on the left" w/ our enemies in a post 9/11 world.

Like I said, I could do this ALL DAY LONG if you wish?

TAG, U'R IT!

[Guest JMT]

.....more pro american/wishful thinking BS .................next .

since when does reuters put out "pro-american bs"? whatever that means.

:

All i'll say is this ......

.

..Articles like this are almost identical in credibility as when this administration said that Violence was going to deminish substancially after the Iraqi voted .......and guess what

.. 3 elections have passed, and its still the same .

..don't be so gulable .

again, this article is from REUTERS.

and if you want to use big words at least please spell them correctly.

[Guest saintjohn]

Wow - I didn't realize that Reuters is a propaganda tool for the Bush administration! Is there any source of news that I can trust? I don't want to be "gulable."

[Guest saintjohn]

Can I trust this news source?

IRAQ: NEW MILITIA FORMED TO PROTECT CITIZENS IN REBEL STRONGHOLD

Baghdad, 23 Jan. (AKI) - A 3,000-strong militia has been created in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, central Iraq, to protect civilians from insurgent violence, a tribal chieftan in surrounding Anbar province told Adnkronos International (AKI), speaking on condition of anonymity. "The formation of the new militia was decided in conjunction with the US-led coalition, and is aimed at protecting people in the area and repelling terrorist elements," the chieftan said.

On Sunday, several armed groups fighting against Iraq's transitional government and its US-led coalition force backers of Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda linked group. The groups in a statement posted on the Internet said they had severed all links with the Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi, who is suspected of masterminding some of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq.

On 5 January, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a police recruiting centre in Ramadi, killing around 60 people and injured some 60. Some 1,000 applicants were queuing at a police recruitment drive.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.256066382&par=0

Hmmm. The cause for the rift seems to be the January 5th bombing in Ramadi. The suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting center because there were 1,000 applicants waiting in line to join up.

[Guest saintjohn]

Or how about the Chicago Tribune?

Most notably, some Iraqi nationalist insurgent groups are turning against al-Zarqawi and his foreign Arab volunteers, whose spectacular suicide bombings have served the insurgency's goals well until now but whose Islamic extremism has come to be seen as a liability by rebels whose aim increasingly is to secure a role for Sunni Iraqis in the new political order.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/world/13693971.htm

[Guest saintjohn]

It's sad that so many respected news organizations seem to be reporting the same facts. If more people realize that the Iraqi rebels are fighting al Qaeda, it will "deminish substancially" the belief that "its still the same."

[Guest pod]

Quagmire, and I'm not talking Family Guy.

Glass parking lot time. Start over.

[Guest BIOBLIZZARD]

Stupid until presumed intelligent ???,

Old George looked great yesterday stout, swagger, and humorous. Did anybody get a count on the amount of times he used the word filibuster ;D ;D??

Social Security?? Hahahahaha Congress got slapped in the face on that one, way to hold your ground Georgie.

Osama to offer a truce after threating more direct violence to the U.S. how thought provoking...............

"We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business."

[Guest drlogic]

I like to hear what the majority of the military says, not how the press interprets it.

Reuters is the UK's equivelant of the A.P., right?

Both are shameful in their blatant, anti-american spin. If they write something that shines a positive light on America or it's policy, then my guess is they had no other choice because ignoring the story wouldn't help them. Just my opinion, of course.

I've never seen the press get more wrong, more often than they have since 2000.

When reading a story which tries to imply blame or cast doubt on America, it's leader/s or it's policies I envoke the TABLOID RULE......Be it NYT, LATIMES,BOSTON GLOBE,WASH POST,ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,NPR,BBC....................Just read/listen to the story and tell yourself "IMAGINE IF THAT WERE TRUE?"...Odds are it isn't or the story is just full of holes void of perspective and historical references.......

I find myself doing that w/ all headlines...."IMAGINE IF THAT SHIT WERE TRUE".....It really helps in digesting news and filtering out the spin coming from ALL angles.

[Guest saintjohn]

Pod, don't give up on Iraq yet. This is from Slate, not Fox:

It's Curtains for al-Qaida

What happens when Iraqi "insurgents" take on Zarqawi's thugs?

By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Monday, Jan. 16, 2006, at 1:57 PM ET

The best news from Iraq this year would certainly be the long New York Times report of Jan. 12 on the murderous strife between local "insurgents" and al-Qaida infiltrators. This was also among the best news from last year. For months, coalition soldiers in Iraq had been telling anyone who would care to listen that they had noticed a new phenomenon: heavy fire that they didn't have to duck. On analysis, this turned out to be shooting or shelling apparently "incoming" from one "insurgent position" but actually directed at another one.

That would be bad enough news for the video-butchers and the bombers of mosques, but there was worse to come. On Aug. 14 last year, the Washington Post published the following lead paragraph on its front page:

Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city. … Dozens of Sunni members of the Dulaimi tribe established cordons around Shiite homes, and Sunni men battled followers of Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for an hour Saturday morning. The clashes killed five of Zarqawi's guerrillas and two tribal fighters, residents and hospital workers said. Zarqawi loyalists pulled out of two contested neighborhoods in pickup trucks stripped of license plates, witnesses said.

The use of "rising up" and "insurgent" in that first phrase is perhaps unintentionally amusing. To be an insurgent is to rise up by definition; I've never read of it being done against an insurgent before, but then I did not pick this stupid term for the Iraqi thugs and fundamentalists in the first place. (Incidentally, on Jan. 5, the Times ran a story under the headline, "Rebel Attacks in Iraq Kill 50, 30 at a Funeral." The first paragraph of Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s article then began with the words "Insurgents unleashed car bombs," and the second paragraph said, "In the most lethal attack, terrorists hit …" My italics.)

Back to the Post story from Ramadi: Just for once, those of us who have known so many democratic and decent Iraqis got to see our friends quoted on the front page. "We have had enough of this nonsense," said Sheik Ahmad Khanjar, the leader of the Albu Ali clan. "We don't accept that a non-Iraqi should try to enforce his control over Iraqis, regardless of their sect—whether Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs or Kurds." Ali Hussein Lifta, a local Shiite repairman, responded handsomely. "So many ties of friendship, marriage and compassion" connect people, he said. "We have become in fact part of the population here."

[Guest saintjohn]

(continued)

Of course, most reporters then returned to their insulting (and insultingly easy) task of demarcating and segregating all Iraqi opinion as if it had to fall into one of three groups. In Washington, in public, but unquoted, Ahmad Chalabi said last fall that it would be the Sunnis who would get rid of Zarqawi. Now we read (in the Jan. 12 New York Times) of members of the Sunni "Islamic Army" directly confronting al-Qaida's gangsters on the streets of Taji, a town to the north of Baghdad, with appreciable casualties on both sides. And within a few weeks, when the Dec. 15 elections occurred, armed supporters of the local insurgent militias were guarding polling places (in Ramadi, among other previously hot locations) and warning al-Qaida to stay away. Interviewed for the Times piece was Abu Marwa, a militia activist from a town farther south, who described setting a trap for two Syrian al-Qaida members—and killing both of them—after their group had tortured and killed one of his Shiite relatives. ("His legs bore drill holes revealing bone. His jaw had slid off to one side of his head, and his nose was broken. Burns marked his body.")

The significance of this, and of numerous other similar accounts, is three-fold. First, it means that the regular media caricature of Iraqi society is not even a parody. It is very common indeed to find mixed and intermarried families, and these loyalties and allegiances outweigh anything that can be mustered by a Jordanian jailbird who has bet everything on trying to ignite a sectarian war. Second, it means in the not very long run that the so-called insurgency can be politically isolated and militarily defeated. It already operates within a minority of a minority and is largely directed by unpopular outsiders. Politically, it is the Khmer Rouge plus the Mafia—not the Viet Cong. And unlike the Khmer Rouge, it has no chance at all of taking the major cities. Nor, apart from the relatively weak Syrian regime, does it have a hinterland or a friendly neutral territory to use for resupply. And its zealots are now being killed by nationalist and secular, as well as clerical, guerrillas. (In Kurdistan, the Zarqawi riffraff don't even try; there is a real people's army there, and it has a short way with fascists. It also fights on the coalition side.) In counterinsurgency terms, this is curtains for al-Qaida.

Which is my third point. If all goes even reasonably well, and if a combination of elections and prosperity is enough to draw more mainstream Sunnis into politics and away from Baathist nostalgia, it will have been proved that Bin-Ladenism can be taken on—and openly defeated—in a major Middle Eastern country. And not just defeated but discredited. Humiliated. Is there anyone who does not think that this is a historic prize worth having? Worth fighting for, in fact?

I leave that thought with all those who have been advocating withdrawal, or taking a fatalistic attitude to an overrated "insurgency," or who hold the absurd belief that al-Qaida would have left Iraq alone if only we had done the same. If their advice had been followed, and the coalition had pulled out in 2004, the Zarqawi forces would have tried to take the credit, and their boast might even have been believed. This would have been a calamity of a global and epochal order. Now, however difficult and messy the rest of the transition, that at least will never be the outcome.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134378/

[Guest mursa]

.....more pro american/wishful thinking BS .................next .

since when does reuters put out "pro-american bs"? whatever that means.

:

All i'll say is this ......

.

..Articles like this are almost identical in credibility as when this administration said that Violence was going to deminish substancially after the Iraqi voted .......and guess what

.. 3 elections have passed, and its still the same .

..don't be so gulable .

again, this article is from REUTERS.

and if you want to use big words at least please spell them correctly.

Someone (generals / army officials ) on the ground told Reuters .......reuters simply published the story . Or in more simplistic terms ........... the SOURCE of the story were Military officials ......the same ones that said

1..the capture of Saddam will kill the insurgency

then

2......the election will kill the insurgency ...

...then 2 more election occur ..

...we have now gone through 3

see a pattern ?

[Guest saintjohn]

the SOURCE of the story were Military officials

Here are the attributions from the article:

"Residents told Reuters..."

"...one Ramadi resident familiar with the events said."

"...said the resident"

"Local Iraqi officials confirmed residents' accounts..."

"The pan-Arab Al Hayat newspaper quoted a statement from six Iraqi armed groups..."

"Another resident following events closely said..."

"...residents said"

"...residents said"

"U.S. Major General Rick Lynch said..."

The reporter quoted or cited various Ramadi residents, local officials, a regional newspaper, a joint statement from the six rebel groups that formed the "People's Cell," and ONE American military source.

see a pattern ?

Definitely.

[Guest drlogic]

Someone (generals / army officials ) on the ground told Reuters .......reuters simply published the story . Or in more simplistic terms ........... the SOURCE of the story were Military officials ......the same ones that said

1..the capture of Saddam will kill the insurgency

then

2......the election will kill the insurgency ...

...then 2 more election occur ..

...we have now gone through 3

see a pattern ?

The pattern in obvious, you choose NOT to get THE BIG PICTURE...(for whatever reasons???????)

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own versions of facts...............that's where you made the wrong turn.

Regardless, keep it up. I disagree w/ you, but I need you to keep showing everyone who you are. If not, I just become another chronic complainer like most modern demz/liberals. That would be like commiting suicide. Why follow a proven, failed model?

[Guest LeVeL]

Its about time those Iraqi rebels turned against Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not only killing Americans but also Iraqi's now.

And they call it a Jihad :

[Guest mursa]

[quote author=mursa

again, this article is from REUTERS.

and if you want to use big words at least please spell them correctly.

Someone (generals / army officials ) on the ground told Reuters .......reuters simply published the story . Or in more simplistic terms ........... the SOURCE of the story were Military officials ......the same ones that said

1..the capture of Saddam will kill the insurgency

then

2......the election will kill the insurgency ...

...then 2 more election occur ..

...we have now gone through 3

see a pattern ?

The pattern in obvious, you choose NOT to get THE BIG PICTURE...(for whatever reasons???????)

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own versions of facts...............that's where you made the wrong turn.

Regardless, keep it up. I disagree w/ you, but I need you to keep showing everyone who you are.

lol .....yea the big picture ........you know the big picture .

...the big picture of WMD's

..the big picture of Capturing Saddam

...the big picture of Election 1

...the big picture of election 2

...the big picture of election 3

refer to this , maybe you and your kind will be unchained one day http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

[Guest JMT]

[quote author=mursa

again, this article is from REUTERS.

and if you want to use big words at least please spell them correctly.

Someone (generals / army officials ) on the ground told Reuters .......reuters simply published the story . Or in more simplistic terms ........... the SOURCE of the story were Military officials ......the same ones that said

1..the capture of Saddam will kill the insurgency

then

2......the election will kill the insurgency ...

...then 2 more election occur ..

...we have now gone through 3

see a pattern ?

The pattern in obvious, you choose NOT to get THE BIG PICTURE...(for whatever reasons???????)

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own versions of facts...............that's where you made the wrong turn.

Regardless, keep it up. I disagree w/ you, but I need you to keep showing everyone who you are.

lol .....yea the big picture ........you know the big picture .

...the big picture of WMD's

..the big picture of Capturing Saddam

...the big picture of Election 1

...the big picture of election 2

...the big picture of election 3

refer to this , maybe you and your kind will be unchained one day http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

youre really getting desperate now.