PDA

View Full Version : Ex-allies 'fight al-Qaeda in Iraq'



wilberhum
11-13-2007, 06:18 PM
Local Iraqi forces have been celebrating what they say is a significant victory against al-Qaeda in the province of Diyala, north of Baghdad.

The men - aligned to local Sunni leaders and once anti-government fighters themselves - claim to have captured up to 60 members of al-Qaeda, including some of the group's regional leaders.

Recent violence blamed on the group has taken its toll, turning residents against an organisation they now feel has let them down, local officials say.

Last month, Osama bin Laden criticised his followers in Iraq for losing the support of the locals.

Husein al-Zubaidi, a Diyala official, said: "Al-Qaeda cheated people under the name of 'jihad' and their actions were against all principles.

"They hurt all Iraqi sects, this is what pushed the national armed groups to face them strongly and bravely."

Former Sunni fighters on Saturday asked the US to stay away, then ambushed members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, killing 18 in a battle that raged for hours north of Baghdad, a former Sunni group leader and Iraqi police said.

Abu Ibrahim, a senior Islamic Army leader, said on Saturday that his fighters killed 18 al-Qaeda fighters and captured 16 in the fight southeast of Samarra, a mostly Sunni city about 90km north of Baghdad.

Anbar example

The most notable sign of shifting alliances has been that of tribal chiefs from Anbar, Iraq's largest Sunni province, joining with the government to fight al-Qaeda.

There are also reports that armed groups once allied to al-Qaeda have started to turn against them.

In a sign the government is working towards reconciliation, 70 former members of Saddam Hussein's party were reinstated to their jobs after they joined the fight against al-Qaida in Anbar, Ali al-Lami, a senior official with the commission that considered their cases, said.

Al-Lami told the Associated Press news agency that the former Baath party members included 12 university professors, officers in the disbanded Iraqi army, former policemen and teachers.

Losing ground

According to a US military commander in Baghdad's southern areas, al-Qaeda is losing ground.

Major-General Rick Lynch, who also monitors military activities in the provinces of Babel, Karbala, Najaf and Wasit, said on Sunday the fighters were losing local support as thousands of former anti-American militias had now allied themselves with the US military.

Lynch also said that the quantity of Iranian bomb-making components being found in Iraq is increasing despite a fall in attacks and 20 Iranian-trained agents are still operating south of Baghdad.

He said: "Iranian influence is dominant at many levels."

Lynch's command is said to cover some of Iraq's most dangerous areas, including the so-called Triangle of Death, south of Baghdad.

'Concerned citizens'

Lynch said around 26,000 Iraqis were now working with the military to help secure the region.

He said: "Al-Qaeda has lost support. It does not have support from the local population."

A large number of the "concerned local citizens" - a term used by the US military - were former fighters who battled US-led forces after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government.

Lynch said nearly 16,000 of the 26,000 "concerned citizens" were being employed by the US military to guard checkpoints, bridges and other infrastructure and act as neighbourhood watchdogs.

In related news, British officers have met Iraqi fighters as part of efforts to end sectarian violence, an army officer said in an interview published on Sunday.

Major-General Paul Newton, a senior British army commander in Iraq, told The Sunday Telegraph that he leads a unit - along with a senior US state department official - that is contacting anti-government fighters and their sympathisers to try to find common ground.

Maliki satisfied

For his part, Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said on Sunday that "terrorist acts" including car bombings and other al-Qaeda-style attacks have dropped by 77 per cent.

He called it a sign that Sunni-Shia violence was nearly gone from Baghdad.

"We are all realising now that what Baghdad was seeing every day - dead bodies in the streets and morgues - is ebbing remarkably," al-Maliki said.

Nevertheless, a trickle of violence continued on Sunday, with at least 10 people killed or found dead around the country.

The toll included a 12-year-old girl in Baghdad's Baladiyat area, who was killed by a roadside bomb that aimed for a US convoy but missed its target, police said.
(More)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...ABAB700DBF.htm
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
aadil77
11-13-2007, 06:29 PM
:sl:

are muslims allowed to kill other muslims that are spreading extremism?
you know like above^
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
:sl:

are muslims allowed to kill other muslims that are spreading extremism?
you know like above^
Do you think a Muslim should ignore someone to do every kind of evil only because the evil doer is a Muslim?
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.
4:92


So you think it is OK to allow a operson to do any kind of evil because they are a Muslim?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
wilberhum
11-13-2007, 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
What the hell are you talking about :? ... Here's the next verse:

4:93

So what makes it so that I think that a Muslim should be allowed to commit evils?
I always see post and read articles that say it is never allowed to kill a beliver. They never talk about exceptions.
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
Ever heard of Qisas-Retalliation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qisas
So you think the way to handel someone who is running around killing people is to fine him?
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
And stop making it out as though I'm running the show, do you think anyone who's in their right mind would allow unlawful killings? Does that change when it comes to Muslims?
Your running the show? :?
Of course I don't "think anyone who's in their right mind would allow unlawful killings". But I was confused as to your stance.
Reply

InToTheRain
11-13-2007, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
So you think the way to handel someone who is running around killing people is to fine him?
The victim has the right to kill him or accept blood money.

Don't expect you to believe in the Laws of Allah(SWT) if you don't believe he exists anyways :D
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
What stance? Seriously I think your age is getting to you.

Anyway, my point was that I don't really care who supports who, I'm just happy as long as there is no killing. Full stop. Why should I have to get into the stupid politics of things?
Well that's not a bad stance. One I have to agree with. :thumbs_up

But seriously my age has got to me. :D :giggling::giggling::giggling::giggling:
Reply

MTAFFI
11-13-2007, 07:59 PM
wow, it seems as though there is a bit of a turning point in Iraq right now huh? I wonder where all those people are who said the war was lost, etc.? :? If this was a thread about continuing casualties and suicide bombs this thread would be thriving with conversations about the US being behind it all, and stealing oil and all the other usual rubbish..... Funny how the US has been attacked on this forum so many times for all the violence in Iraq, but as soon as the Iraqis start standing up for themselves and fighting this "militant islam" group call "Al-qaeda" the violence drops by over 70%? How about some apologies people as time is telling exactly who was behind this? How about some condemnation? How about accepting that there is a radical form of Islam in this world that misleads its followers and has caused both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now spilling into Pakistan.... I am sure we will never see it

(This message is directed specifically at certain people who I am very sure that they know who they are)

Pray for continuing progress toward peace in Iraq
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 08:22 PM
MTAFFI,
We are usually on the same page, but not with this one.

The war is a he11 of a long way from being won. IMHO what we have lost is a lot more than we will ever win.

Funny how the US has been attacked on this forum so many times for all the violence in Iraq
I don’t see anything funny about it. We stated a war we lacked justification for and before it is all done, more than a million will die for it.

Al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq before we invaded so I hardly think apologies to us is necessary but hopefully those refuse to accept reality will come to acknowledge that there is a “radical form of Islam” in the world.

I started this thread not as some form of victory notice. I just hope we kill the demon that we have created and then get out.
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-13-2007, 08:29 PM
assalaamu alaykum,

the so-called muslims who side with their kuffar against their brothers are in general principle apostates, and should be dealt with as such.

the americans have been throwing money at these tribes for a few years now, trying to divide and conquer and it just goes to show that as muslims we are not beaten by our enemies but by ourselves and our own weaknesses.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
assalaamu alaykum,

the so-called muslims who side with their kuffar against their brothers are in general principle apostates, and should be dealt with as such.
So you think it is OK to drill holes in there knees then shot them in the head?

the americans have been throwing money at these tribes for a few years now, trying to divide and conquer
Divide and conquer or stop them from killing each other? I think the latter.
and it just goes to show that as muslims we are not beaten by our enemies but by ourselves and our own weaknesses.
Too bad you didn't have a chance to live under SH.
assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah
Because I don't aprove of the war doesn't mean I don't to see the killing stop.
For some time not most of the killing has been based on criminal activity and sectarian violance.
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-13-2007, 10:01 PM
hi wilberhum,

it is generally the state police / shia militia who have been watching driller killer too many times, the mujahadeen just go for the simple head chop or bullet to the back of the head, remember the iraqi govt prison that was raided by US forces and where they found drilled prisoners and ones whose skin had been flayed off their backs?

if saddam was still there i would advocate his death also, as well as the current apostate rulers, saddam was the wests pet puppy who grew into a rabid dog, though it may be true he repented at the end.

anyway, havent got time for a debate. laters.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

wilberhum
11-13-2007, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
hi wilberhum,

it is generally the state police / shia militia who have been watching driller killer too many times, the mujahadeen just go for the simple head chop or bullet to the back of the head, remember the iraqi govt prison that was raided by US forces and where they found drilled prisoners and ones whose skin had been flayed off their backs?

if saddam was still there i would advocate his death also, as well as the current apostate rulers, saddam was the wests pet puppy who grew into a rabid dog, though it may be true he repented at the end.

anyway, havent got time for a debate. laters.

Abu Abdullah
If it is generally the state police / shia militia so does that mean all other sects are without fault? :hmm:
current apostate rulers? Are all Iraq goverment officials apostates? :offended:

Interesting.
Reply

snakelegs
11-13-2007, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
wow, it seems as though there is a bit of a turning point in Iraq right now huh? I wonder where all those people are who said the war was lost, etc.? :? If this was a thread about continuing casualties and suicide bombs this thread would be thriving with conversations about the US being behind it all, and stealing oil and all the other usual rubbish..... Funny how the US has been attacked on this forum so many times for all the violence in Iraq, but as soon as the Iraqis start standing up for themselves and fighting this "militant islam" group call "Al-qaeda" the violence drops by over 70%? How about some apologies people as time is telling exactly who was behind this? How about some condemnation? How about accepting that there is a radical form of Islam in this world that misleads its followers and has caused both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now spilling into Pakistan.... I am sure we will never see it

(This message is directed specifically at certain people who I am very sure that they know who they are)

Pray for continuing progress toward peace in Iraq
apologies?????? are you well? something like "sorry, u.s. if we made your invasion and occupation an unpleasant and messy experience for you"?
Reply

Keltoi
11-14-2007, 04:21 AM
The thing will bring peace to Iraq quicker than anything else is stability and a viable economy. There are way too many Iraqis with nothing but empty wallets and ammunition.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-14-2007, 02:19 PM
I had a feeling that the post i put up earlier would cause a little anger out of some people, so let me just make it clear.

I was not speaking to everyone, i was speaking specifically to those who were saying that the US was bombing the mosques, the people who continuously refer to the Lancet study and the people who are constantly siding with Al-Qaeda and justifying their actions just because they claim to be a muslim group. These are the people who need to apologize, certainly not you snakelegs. (you seem to be a rational logical person)

I am not saying the conflict in Iraq is won, I am celebrating the progress. The conflict (I use this term b/c our troops are not at war they are police officers) in Iraq is far from over and it will take many years for that country to rebuild itself to a fully functioning country, and I will bet, that even though it may be a smaller number the suicide bombings, they will continue for many years.

Take Dawud for example on this thread, even though the US has obviously slowed the pace and put a dent in Al-qaeda and the Iraqis are getting a little peace he still insists that they are fighting their "brothers". These are not brothers my friend, these are enemies who do not abide by the Quran and its teachings, the Iraqis have every right and the responsibility to stand up against this group of terrorists and protect their lives and their families lives. You are on the wrong side of the fence my friend and I would just like a little recognition for the US progress in this war torn country.

I apologize to anyone who misunderstood my first post. I am not justifying the war in Iraq, just happy to see positive progress. Hope that all clears it up
Reply

wilberhum
11-14-2007, 05:24 PM
MTAFFI,
Well done. Thanks for the explination. :thumbs_up


Keltoi,
You could not be more correct. :thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Peace all
Wilber
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-15-2007, 05:29 AM
lol, no offence mtaffi but i will not have a non-muslim tell me what is or isnt in the Quran and who is or isnt upon it and the sunnah.

to answer your question in general principle anyone who rules by other than Allah has revealed, making the haram into halal and halal into haram is a kaffir whether they claim islam or not.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

Malaikah
11-15-2007, 05:33 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I always see post and read articles that say it is never allowed to kill a beliver. They never talk about exceptions.
And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allâh; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allâh loves those who are equitable.

49:9
Reply

The_Prince
11-15-2007, 09:17 AM
i dont see how americans see this as something good for them?

do you guys realize the ONLY reason these sunni insurgents turned on AQI is because AQI were going abit over-board in attacks against IRAQIS. in other words these insurgents would have never turned on AQI if they just toned it down abit, basically these sunnis still dont really like you americans, they just made a strategic move, which was smart, and hey they get american weapons and money to do it!

make no mistake these sunni insurgents dont like america, and once they are done with AQI they will start turning their guns right back at the americans, infact most of them havent really taken their guns off the americans anyway.

and what makes it rather amusing is that a few years ago groups like islamic army of iraqi, mujhideen army etc were called MILLITANT Islam and radical Islamists, all of a sudden their moderate nationalists?! lol.

they are no different than they were 2 or 3 years ago, the only difference is is that they have had enough of suicide bombings against mosques, and markets! not against IED'S and attacks against american forces!

so to call this progress is quite wrong, this isnt progress at all.

whats to say that these groups dont make a peace treaty next week or next month? it could easily happen if AQI agree to renounce some of their extreme tactics of bombings of mosques and markets, and simply concentrate on american forces!

but to another point, the fact is even admited by americans that AQI is NOT the biggest threat in iraq, nor have they been for the past 2 years! the real threat for the US plans have been the Shiite millitias! and these guys are still as strong as ever and are getting stronger by the day. the second USA leaves they will simply turn shiite areas into strong holds for themselves and what you will have is hezbollah land in shiite areas. and that isnt good at all for the future when they are strong enough and maybe start looking to attack israel and american interests in the middle-east.

..........where is the progress.............

they often say when things are quiet and calm that this is actually a bad sign, and thats what i think. the fact that things may seem quieter in iraq for the moment is not really progress, rather it is the small calm before the big storm, and the fact that millitant groups are waiting and binding their time till the Americans end their surge.

the fact is when millitants go quiet and calm, it means their re-grouping, re-orginizing, and re-arming etc etc. they will probaly wait it out until america leaves leaving a puppet iraqi goverment incapble of defending itself or holding down the authority, giving the millitants the easy oppurtunity to take over. people need to now start looking at the BIG PICTURE, the long term affects, not the short term day to day affects.

insurgents and millitias have evolved, so have their tactics and plans......and thats not progress, it just means their smarter and more ambitious now than they were 3 years ago when all they wanted was america to be out and make a nice peaceful iraq. now they want america out and not only that, but to have power themselves and run the show, and why not? they are strong enough to do so after years after guerilla warfare and insurgency.

:)
Reply

MTAFFI
11-15-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
to answer your question in general principle anyone who rules by other than Allah has revealed, making the haram into halal and halal into haram is a kaffir whether they claim islam or not.

Abu Abdullah
So then based on this statement alone you agree with what i stated above

no offence taken either, although how do you know what my religious orientation is?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-15-2007, 12:32 PM
if the Talibaan is not the taifatul mansoora then i dont know who is....

im serious... who?

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullaah
Reply

MTAFFI
11-15-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally Posted by The_Prince
i dont see how americans see this as something good for them?

do you guys realize the ONLY reason these sunni insurgents turned on AQI is because AQI were going abit over-board in attacks against IRAQIS. in other words these insurgents would have never turned on AQI if they just toned it down abit, basically these sunnis still dont really like you americans, they just made a strategic move, which was smart, and hey they get american weapons and money to do it!

make no mistake these sunni insurgents dont like america, and once they are done with AQI they will start turning their guns right back at the americans, infact most of them havent really taken their guns off the americans anyway.

and what makes it rather amusing is that a few years ago groups like islamic army of iraqi, mujhideen army etc were called MILLITANT Islam and radical Islamists, all of a sudden their moderate nationalists?! lol.

they are no different than they were 2 or 3 years ago, the only difference is is that they have had enough of suicide bombings against mosques, and markets! not against IED'S and attacks against american forces!

so to call this progress is quite wrong, this isnt progress at all.

whats to say that these groups dont make a peace treaty next week or next month? it could easily happen if AQI agree to renounce some of their extreme tactics of bombings of mosques and markets, and simply concentrate on american forces!

but to another point, the fact is even admited by americans that AQI is NOT the biggest threat in iraq, nor have they been for the past 2 years! the real threat for the US plans have been the Shiite millitias! and these guys are still as strong as ever and are getting stronger by the day. the second USA leaves they will simply turn shiite areas into strong holds for themselves and what you will have is hezbollah land in shiite areas. and that isnt good at all for the future when they are strong enough and maybe start looking to attack israel and american interests in the middle-east.

..........where is the progress.............

they often say when things are quiet and calm that this is actually a bad sign, and thats what i think. the fact that things may seem quieter in iraq for the moment is not really progress, rather it is the small calm before the big storm, and the fact that millitant groups are waiting and binding their time till the Americans end their surge.

the fact is when millitants go quiet and calm, it means their re-grouping, re-orginizing, and re-arming etc etc. they will probaly wait it out until america leaves leaving a puppet iraqi goverment incapble of defending itself or holding down the authority, giving the millitants the easy oppurtunity to take over. people need to now start looking at the BIG PICTURE, the long term affects, not the short term day to day affects.

insurgents and millitias have evolved, so have their tactics and plans......and thats not progress, it just means their smarter and more ambitious now than they were 3 years ago when all they wanted was america to be out and make a nice peaceful iraq. now they want america out and not only that, but to have power themselves and run the show, and why not? they are strong enough to do so after years after guerilla warfare and insurgency.

:)
a perfect example, do you think that the shia militias would be a good government in Iraq? Do you think the Islamic state of Iraq would be a good government? I bet you liked SH didnt you? Fact is, whether you want to recognize it or not, the Iraqi people are sick of these types of groups, they see the american troops are there trying to help them and they are turning against these groups that want to kill them and the troops. But hey lets take a better look at your hypothesis, what sense would it make for these people to turn around and kill americans after the americans have helped them so much (should the AQI, etc be driven out)? Even better, what reason at that point would the US presence be necessary? It wouldnt and we could leave the Iraqis to themselves to live far more peacefully then they have been. Basically all you have done is say that the general Iraqi public are nothing but a bunch of ungrateful scam artists who want nothing but war, which I dont think is true. I think these people just want the violence to stop which is why they are helping the US in such larger numbers.

You seem consumed with the idea that attacking the US is a good thing, perhaps you should take a look back in short history, look at what the last attack did to the middle east, do you think that something like that would be tolerated again, particularly by Israel?!! You are full of yourself a state sponsered attack on the US would be a horrible deadly mistake by anyone in the middle east which is why it doesnt happen. Look how many countries are over there surrounding tiny Israel, and look how badly they want that land yet no one can take it, they only can respond with these militias that claim no mans land, there is a reason for that and that is they realize they would lose, just like they lost every war with them before, they are inferior. So go ahead form a Hezbollah government that openly attacks Israel or US interest because it will only be in vain when they are hiding in spider holes next.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-15-2007, 12:36 PM
Ex-Allies (traitors) fight Al-Qaeda (their brothers) in Iraq (the land of the muslims)

i thought i'd translate that for the less aware


Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah
Reply

Malaikah
11-15-2007, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
if the Talibaan is not the taifatul mansoora then i dont know who is....
:sl:

What is taifatul mansoora? :?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-15-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
:sl:

What is taifatul mansoora? :?
Wa alaikum ussalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

At-Taifatul Mansoora is translated into "the aided and victorious group" heres more on them:

The Aided and Victorious Group:

[1] The Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “There will not cease to be a group from my Ummah victorious upon the truth, not being harmed by those who oppose them until the command of Allaah comes about, and they are like that.” [33]

[2] He (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) said, “When the people of Shaam (Syria, Jordan, Palestine) become corrupt then there will be no good in you. And there will not cease to be a group from my Ummah being helped; those that oppose them will not harm them, until the hour is established.” [34]

[3] Ibnul-Mubaarak (d.151H) - rahimahullaah – said, “According to me, they are Ashaabul-Hadeeth (the Scholars of Hadeeth).” [35]

[4] Imaam al-Bukhaaree (d.256H) - rahimahullaah – said, “It means: Ahlul-Hadeeth (the People of Hadeeth).” [36]

[5] Imaam Ahmad (d.241H) - rahimahullaah – said, “If this Taa‘ifatul-Mansoorah (Victorious and Aided Group) is not Ashaabul-Hadeeth, then I do not know who they are.” [37]

[al-Qaadee ’Iyaad (d.544H) - rahimahullaah – said, “What Ahmad intended was Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah: those who hold the ’aqeedah of Ahlul-Hadeeth.” [38]]

[6] Indeed, Ahlul-Hadeeth, by virtue of their competence in the study of the Sunnah, are not attached to any person, but are altogether concerned with the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam); his guidance, his manners, his battles, and whatever else pertains to him.

[7] Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee said, whilst addressing Imaam Ahmad, “You are more knowledgeable about Hadeeth than I am. So if there comes to you a Hadeeth that is authentic, then make me aware of it, until I accept it and accord with it - it is from Basrah.” [39]

So Ahlul-Hadeeth - may Allaah make us amongst them - do not have ta’assub (bigoted blind adherence) for the saying of any particular person, however elevated, or whatever position he holds. Rather, they cling to the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), as opposed to those who do not ascribe themselves to Ahlul-Hadeeth; those who have ta’assub to their Imaams - who have actually prohibited them from this - just as Ahlul-Hadeeth readily cling to the sayings of their Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam). So it is not surprising that Ahlul-Hadeeth are al-Firqatun-Naajiyah (the Saved-Sect ) and at-Taa‘ifatul-Mansoorah (the Aided and Victorious Group).

(8) al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (d.463H) said, “And if only the people of blameworthy opinion busied themselves with beneficial knowledge, and seeking the Sunnah of the Messenger of the Lord of Creation, and followed the way of the fuqahaa‘ and muhaddithoon - then they would find that this would be sufficient for them. And the narration would take the place of his opinion which he used to hold; since the Hadeeth comprehends the fundamentals of Tawheed, the reported Threats and the Promises, the Attributes of the Lord of Creation - who is High above the saying of the apostates, it also contains information about Paradise and Hell-Fire, and what Allaah has prepared therein for the pious and the wicked, and what Allaah has created in the earths and the heavens, and the remarkable things and great signs, and a mention of the nearest Angels - those drawn up in ranks and those who recite tasbeeh.

And the Hadeeth comprehends stories of the about the pious ascetics and Awliyaa‘, wonderful admonition and sayings of the Scholars. It contains histories of the kings of the ’Arabs and non-’Arabs, and the accounts of past nations, and descriptions of the battles of the Messenger (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam); his expeditions, rulings, judgements, sermons, warnings, predictions and miracles. It also contains information about the number of his Wives and Children, his Relatives and Companions, and a mention of their excellence and merit, and a mention of their lives, their actions and their ancestry. And the Hadeeth contains tafseer of the Qur‘aan, information and the wise remembrance contained in it. It contains the sayings of the Companions about its preserved rulings, the different sayings they held, as well as those of the Scholars and mujtahideen.

And Allaah made Ahlul-Hadeeth (the People of Hadeeth) the pillar of the Sharee’ah and the destroyer of every despicable innovation. So they are Allaah’s wardens amongst His creation, and the link between the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and his Ummah, and the strivers to preserve His Religion. So their light shines brightly, their excellence remains, their signs are clear, their positions evident and their proofs are over-powering. And all the sects coil themselves around vain desires and prefer opinion which they cling to - except for Ahlul-Hadeeth, since the Book is their provision, the Sunnah is their proof, the Messenger their leader and to him is their ascription. They do not deviate upon vain desires, nor turn to mere conjecture. They accept what is reported from the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) and they are the trustworthy and reliable ones, who memorise the Religion and are its treasurers, its storehouses of knowledge and its bearers. If anyone differs about a hadeeth, then it is referred back to them. Thus, their judgement is accepted and listened to. From them is every Scholar and Imaam, and every true ascetic, and one of excellence, and precise reciter and righteous Khateeb. They are the Saved-Sect and their way is the straight one...” [40]

May Allaah make us from amongst Ahlul-Hadeeth, and provide us with the ability to act upon it, love its people and to act in accordance with it.


[33] Related by Muslim (6/52-53) and Aboo Daawood (2/202) from Thawbaan (radiyallaahu ’anhu).

[34] Saheeh: Related by at-Tirmidhee (2/30) who said, “The hadeeth is Hasan Saheeh.” It was also related by Ibn Maajah (1/6-7) and Ahmad (3/463), from Qurrah al-Muzanee (radiyallaahu ’anhu).

[35] Sharaf Ashaabul-Hadeeth (p. 26) of al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee

[36] Sharaf Ashaabul-Hadeeth (p. 27)

[37] Related by al-Haakim in Ma’rifatu ’Uloomul-Hadeeth (p. 3), and al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr declared its isnaad to be Saheeh in Fathul-Baaree (13/293).

[38] Sharh Saheeh Muslim (13/67) of an-Nawawee

[39] Related by Ibn Abee Haatim in Aadaabush-Shaafi’ee (p. 94-95), Aboo Nu’aym in Hilyatul-Awliyaa‘ (9/106) and al-Khateeb in Ihtijaaj bish-Shaafi’ee (8/1). It was declared to be Saheeh by Ibn al-Qayyim in al-I’laam (2/325).

[40] Sharaf Ashaabul-Hadeeth (p. 7-9).

Methodology of the Saved Sect
By Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Jameel Zaynoo
Minhaajul-Firqatun-Naajiyah wat-Taa‘ifat al-Mansoorah (p. 6-17) - slightly adapted.
Four additional narrations have been added to the main text, by the editors, and are indicated by [...](Troid)
Reply

MTAFFI
11-15-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
Ex-Allies (traitors) fight Al-Qaeda (their brothers) in Iraq (the land of the muslims)

i thought i'd translate that for the less aware


Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah
so then you believe that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban walk in the path of the prophet (pbuh)? Please forgive me if I am mistaken..

If, however, you do believe this why? It seems to me they venture far from that path and in fact down the whole opposite one.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-15-2007, 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
so then you believe that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban walk in the path of the prophet (pbuh)? Please forgive me if I am mistaken..

If, however, you do believe this why? It seems to me they venture far from that path and in fact down the whole opposite one.

I have heard of many examples of the Taliban fighting the oppressors in their land.

And you have heard what the Media has told you

We both believe out of a bias, i trust my islaamic sources, you trust your non-islaamic sources.


To me the Taliban are simply defending themselves, may Allaah destroy all those who oppress the Afghans
Reply

wilberhum
11-15-2007, 05:33 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
I have heard of many examples of the Taliban fighting the oppressors in their land.

And you have heard what the Media has told you

We both believe out of a bias, i trust my islaamic sources, you trust your non-islaamic sources.


To me the Taliban are simply defending themselves, may Allaah destroy all those who oppress the Afghans
But if you get information from places who's purpose is to provide information, the conclusions are obvious.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-15-2007, 05:45 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
I have heard of many examples of the Taliban fighting the oppressors in their land.

And you have heard what the Media has told you

We both believe out of a bias, i trust my islaamic sources, you trust your non-islaamic sources.


To me the Taliban are simply defending themselves, may Allaah destroy all those who oppress the Afghans
so you dont think that their fight is for power? Or a better question, if the US were to leave the country today and the Taliban were left there with no one to stand in their way, do you believe that they would not kill a single Muslim? If so surely they could not be the ones you spoke of above...
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-15-2007, 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
so you dont think that their fight is for power? Or a better question, if the US were to leave the country today and the Taliban were left there with no one to stand in their way, do you believe that they would not kill a single Muslim? If so surely they could not be the ones you spoke of above...
killing a single innocent muslim is as if you have killed the whole of humanity, doing so is clearly wrong, if the taliban ever commit such injustice intentionally then may Allah bring them to account
Reply

MTAFFI
11-15-2007, 06:12 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
killing a single innocent muslim is as if you have killed the whole of humanity, doing so is clearly wrong, if the taliban ever commit such injustice intentionally then may Allah bring them to account
are you saying they havent already? I would be happy to provide you with evidence of such, which according to your own posts would reflect that they are not who you think they may be and may discourage you from supporting them as you do. Al-qaeda, the ones on this thread that we are talking about, certainly are not this group and as I stated above are the exact opposite. Furthermore there are many groups of Muslims in this world that could be attributed with such a title, but are not necessarily fighting anyone....
Reply

wilberhum
11-15-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
killing a single innocent muslim is as if you have killed the whole of humanity, doing so is clearly wrong, if the taliban ever commit such injustice intentionally then may Allah bring them to account
Is is only a problem it the innocent person killed is a Muslim?
Reply

Keltoi
11-15-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Is is only a problem it the innocent person killed is a Muslim?
I hope not, but probably in the minds of some that is the case. It is all a Western conspiracy. Especially the beheadings of school teachers...that never happened. :blind:
Reply

The_Prince
11-15-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
a perfect example, do you think that the shia militias would be a good government in Iraq? Do you think the Islamic state of Iraq would be a good government? I bet you liked SH didnt you? Fact is, whether you want to recognize it or not, the Iraqi people are sick of these types of groups, they see the american troops are there trying to help them and they are turning against these groups that want to kill them and the troops. But hey lets take a better look at your hypothesis, what sense would it make for these people to turn around and kill americans after the americans have helped them so much (should the AQI, etc be driven out)? Even better, what reason at that point would the US presence be necessary? It wouldnt and we could leave the Iraqis to themselves to live far more peacefully then they have been. Basically all you have done is say that the general Iraqi public are nothing but a bunch of ungrateful scam artists who want nothing but war, which I dont think is true. I think these people just want the violence to stop which is why they are helping the US in such larger numbers.

You seem consumed with the idea that attacking the US is a good thing, perhaps you should take a look back in short history, look at what the last attack did to the middle east, do you think that something like that would be tolerated again, particularly by Israel?!! You are full of yourself a state sponsered attack on the US would be a horrible deadly mistake by anyone in the middle east which is why it doesnt happen. Look how many countries are over there surrounding tiny Israel, and look how badly they want that land yet no one can take it, they only can respond with these militias that claim no mans land, there is a reason for that and that is they realize they would lose, just like they lost every war with them before, they are inferior. So go ahead form a Hezbollah government that openly attacks Israel or US interest because it will only be in vain when they are hiding in spider holes next.
you obviously didnt pay attention to ANYTHING i said, its so obvious your going way off topic.

for starters the iraqi public support the sunni insurgent groups who are fighting AQI. secondly the shiites support most of the millitia groups as well! so no it will not be ME forming Hezbollah land etc, it will be the Iraqi people because they support the millitias in the shiite areas, and the same goes for sunnis in sunni areas.

if Israel couldnt even defeat tiny hezbollah in southern lebanon do you think they have any chance vs triple the amount of millitia fighters all over Iraq? me thinks no, but that isnt a topic for now as it hasnt happened yet, and may never happen, or it may very well happen when shiite millitias are in charge of iraq for a couple of years.

either way back to the point, the sunni insurgent groups fighting AQI are the very same ones who killed thousands of US troops, as well as kidnapping and beheading people, and they have not stopped doing that nor have they said they will, and the fact is these sunni groups are supported by the people. so i hope you dont ignore this point like you did the last time, its obvious you did since you say the iraqi PEOPLE are finally standing up, erm not exactly, they have been standing up since the first day USA began occupying their country, the only difference now is that they are against AQI, NOT the other sunni groups fighting the USA.

so i repeat again, this isnt progress for the USA.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
11-16-2007, 03:25 AM
A "sell-out" is a sell-out and no one respects them, not even the U.S. military, who lumped them all together in yesterday's attack. Naturally they're pissed off at the U.S. military for that, but they really should have known better in the first place.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

al-muslimah
11-16-2007, 03:34 AM
As usual fake story and yes I support this ayah:
Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.
4:92
Wilberhumm you are really affected by the media and their extreme lies huh.Oh well.
Reply

wilberhum
11-16-2007, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
As usual fake story and yes I support this ayah:
Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.
4:92
Wilberhumm you are really affected by the media and their extreme lies huh.Oh well.
Right! Da, Al Jazerra is just an arm or the US government.:uuh:
Do you want to present any more evidence that you don't read? :D

What about a believer killing a non-believer?
I assume that is OK with you.
Reply

al-muslimah
11-16-2007, 04:00 AM
Of course it is allowed only for a justifed reason like jihad or a certain punishment.duh.Al-Jazeera is not even islamic to begin with so.......but as-sahab is.smile.
Reply

al-muslimah
11-16-2007, 04:03 AM
Do you want to present evidence that has brainwashed you.don't bother.I don't believe any western media : cnn, bbc,time, new york tiems, washington post, al-jazeera,and the many infested lies of the west.funny post though. Actually ridiculous.
Reply

wilberhum
11-16-2007, 04:26 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
Of course it is allowed only for a justifed reason like jihad or a certain punishment.duh.Al-Jazeera is not even islamic to begin with so.......but as-sahab is.smile.
That really comes down to an OBL idology.

So you don't believe Western News. You don't accept Al-Jazeera because it isn't Islamic.

Boy life must be boring if you only look at a such a small part of the world.

Maybe some day you will get a grip on reality, but I doubt it.
Reply

al-muslimah
11-16-2007, 04:30 AM
And your point is...........

some people are way slow like you.
Reply

wilberhum
11-16-2007, 04:38 AM
Originally Posted by al-muslimah
And your point is...........

some people are way slow like you.
How would you know? I'm not Islamic, so you have no knowledge.

So sad, maybe when you get out of your teens you will open your eyes.

But as I said, I doubt it.

Enjoy yourself imposed ignorance.

Peace and good bye to you
It isn't any fun to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Wilber
Reply

al-muslimah
11-16-2007, 05:46 AM
Life must be boring for you since all you speak and believe are lies.Like i said"Allah guides whomever he wills and leads astray whomever he wills." Hey at least we worship something unlike u and how does that make you more knowledgable than me or any muslim?funny.Some people....
Reply

al-muslimah
11-16-2007, 05:47 AM
Peace and good bye to you
It isn't any fun to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Wilber


It isn't fun debating with an ignorant and unkowledgable person either wilber
good ridince ya zandiqa
al-muslimah
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-16-2007, 06:08 AM
Originally Posted by MTAFFI
So then based on this statement alone you agree with what i stated above

no offence taken either, although how do you know what my religious orientation is?
i dont, but muslims judge from the apparent, so if someone isnt claiming islam on an islamic message board then my assumption from the apparent is one of saying they are non-muslim,

if that is different and you have taken offence at being called non-muslim, it would be better to change your designation on your id.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-16-2007, 06:15 AM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
if the Talibaan is not the taifatul mansoora then i dont know who is....

im serious... who?

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullaah
wa alaykumus salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

good post, some reps coming your way!

people criticise the taliban, not being there and not understanding their dire situation and how it has led to decisions they might not otherwise have taken.

innocents do sometimes get killed in war, but who makes the the decision on who is innocent and who not? Allah will make that ultimate decision but the mujahadeen must make difficult decisions daily,

ultimately we support them and make dua for them because they fight for the deen, fight to impliment shariah, the law of Allah and fight against those all those who oppose Allah and his law whether they consider themselves muslims or non muslims, their claims dont matter it is their outer reality of their actions which is judged by ourselves.

wa alaykumus salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Abu Abdullah
Reply

wilberhum
11-16-2007, 07:12 AM
Taliban Iraq.
How did I get so comfused?
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-16-2007, 10:46 AM
hi wilberhum,

do you think the two conflicts are seperate in the minds of the believers?

no, they are the same conflict, the same enemy, often the same people fighting on our side also with fighters going from afghanistan to iraq and now returning with new skills and techniques to fight the kaffirs.

many of the amirs in the iraqi mujahadeen give alliegence to the taliban leader mullah muhammad omar (may Allah protect him) either directly or indirectly through their oath of alliangence to sheikh obl.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

wilberhum
11-16-2007, 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
hi wilberhum,

do you think the two conflicts are seperate in the minds of the believers?

no, they are the same conflict, the same enemy, often the same people fighting on our side also with fighters going from afghanistan to iraq and now returning with new skills and techniques to fight the kaffirs.

many of the amirs in the iraqi mujahadeen give alliegence to the taliban leader mullah muhammad omar (may Allah protect him) either directly or indirectly through their oath of alliangence to sheikh obl.

Abu Abdullah
Bet you love OBL too. Why doesn't that suprise me?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-16-2007, 07:44 PM
^ because you love bush
Reply

wilberhum
11-16-2007, 08:07 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
^ because you love bush
Right! I will love him when he is gone. :D

You see I don't define who the good guys are and who the bad guys are based on religion.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-19-2007, 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
wa alaykumus salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

good post, some reps coming your way!

people criticise the taliban, not being there and not understanding their dire situation and how it has led to decisions they might not otherwise have taken.

innocents do sometimes get killed in war, but who makes the the decision on who is innocent and who not? Allah will make that ultimate decision but the mujahadeen must make difficult decisions daily,

ultimately we support them and make dua for them because they fight for the deen, fight to impliment shariah, the law of Allah and fight against those all those who oppose Allah and his law whether they consider themselves muslims or non muslims, their claims dont matter it is their outer reality of their actions which is judged by ourselves.

wa alaykumus salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Abu Abdullah

just came across this, this evening, another fine example of your favored taliban, how do you wish to defend this? Because these police side with the government, as the Quran says you should, they are tortured and their mutilated Muslim bodies are hung from trees (isnt disgracing the dead also unislamic no matter what religious orientation?):skeleton:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/...as/afghanistan

Taliban torture, execute 5 Afghan police By NOOR KHAN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 21 minutes ago



KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Taliban militants slashed the hands and legs of five abducted policemen in southern Afghanistan and hung their mutilated bodies from trees in a warning to villagers against working with the government, officials said Sunday.

The discovery of the bodies came as officials said that recent violence and clashes had left at least 68 people dead across Afghanistan.

The officers had been abducted two months ago from their checkpoint in southern Uruzgan province, said Juma Gul Himat, the provincial police chief. The Taliban slashed their hands and legs and hung the bodies on trees Saturday in Gazak village of Derawud district, he said.

"The Taliban told the people that whoever works with the government will suffer the same fate as these policemen," Himat said. "This village is under Taliban control. There are more than 100 Taliban in this village."

Two tribal elders received the bodies of the policemen on Sunday, he said.

More than 6,000 people have died in insurgency-related violence this year — a record number, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Western and Afghan officials.

The executions followed several days of violence in the country's south which left at least 63 people dead, including 58 militants and two Canadian soldiers.

Also in Uruzgan, police shot and killed two suspected Taliban militants on Sunday as they approached a police checkpoint on a motorbike, Himat said.

In Zabul province, the Taliban ambushed and clashed with an army patrol Saturday night, leaving 11 suspected insurgents dead and four soldiers wounded, said Qasem Khan, a provincial police official.

Authorities recovered the bodies of the 11 militants killed alongside their weapons, Khan said.

In southern Helmand province, a suicide bomber attacked a NATO patrol Sunday in Gereshk district, damaging a vehicle but causing no casualties, said provincial police chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal.

In Kandahar province, Canadian and Afghan troops battled militants and called in airstrikes in Zhari district on Saturday. One Afghan soldier and at least 20 suspected militants were killed, said provincial police chief Sayed Agha Saqeb.

A roadside bomb hit a NATO vehicle during the same battle, killing two Canadian soldiers and their translator and wounding three other Canadian troops, officials said.

Separately, a suicide bomber on a motorbike attacked a NATO convoy in Nangarhar province's Chaparhar district, killing an Afghan civilian and wounding another NATO soldier, officials said Saturday.

Elsewhere, 23 Taliban militants were killed during a U.S.-led coalition operation on Thursday aimed at disrupting a weapons transfer in southern Afghanistan, the coalition said
Reply

NoName55
11-21-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by Iqram
Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom.
4:92
what is your opinon on battle between forces of Hazrat Ayesha and Hazrat Ali razi Allah in light of 4:92 (where Hazrat Ayesha set out to punish a group of olden day terrorists and assasins)?
Reply

al-muslimah
11-22-2007, 05:54 AM
All I have to say is----

ultimately we support them and make dua for them because they fight for the deen, fight to impliment shariah, the law of Allah and fight against those all those who oppose Allah and his law whether they consider themselves muslims or non muslims, their claims dont matter it is their outer reality of their actions which is judged by ourselves.
Reply

Cognescenti
11-22-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim

But when we say all non-muslims, we mean the leaders plan to attack and kill the muslim and the masses support them in ignorance.
The leaders and the masses? Isn't that just about everyone? Who is left..reporters..firefighters?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
11-22-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by Cognescenti
The leaders and the masses? Isn't that just about everyone? Who is left..reporters..firefighters?
yes but what im saying is that the leaders are the ones in the greatest wrong, they clearly know what they're doing and who they're going against yet they desist not, whilst the masses are fed a bunch of propaganda and then they march unknowingly
Reply

Keltoi
11-22-2007, 10:53 PM
Well, contrary to what many believe, the majority of Americans understand that Islamic extremism is an enemy of our way of life. The question is what to do about it. There are many, and I'm one of them, who believes the War in Iraq is a distraction from the real struggle, which is in Afghanistan and those local extremists in Europe and the U.S.
Reply

wilberhum
11-22-2007, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Well, contrary to what many believe, the majority of Americans understand that Islamic extremism is an enemy of our way of life. The question is what to do about it. There are many, and I'm one of them, who believes the War in Iraq is a distraction from the real struggle, which is in Afghanistan and those local extremists in Europe and the U.S.
I'm one of those in that majority. The war in Iraq is wrong and never should have happened.

Afghanistan had to happen. OBL declare war on the US and attacked us on several occasion and the Taliban were his protectors.
Reply

snakelegs
11-22-2007, 11:49 PM
in my opinion everything we have done in the name of "fighting extremism" "war on terror" etc etc has done nothing but make everything worse. we couldn't have done more to fuel it if we had a conscious agenda to do so.
Reply

Keltoi
11-24-2007, 03:35 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
in my opinion everything we have done in the name of "fighting extremism" "war on terror" etc etc has done nothing but make everything worse. we couldn't have done more to fuel it if we had a conscious agenda to do so.
So what would have been the appropriate response to 9-11?
Reply

snakelegs
11-24-2007, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
So what would have been the appropriate response to 9-11?
the truth? i don't know. but somehow i don't think daisy cutters, depleted uranium and all the other stuff we have done in afghanistan has done any good, do you? what have we achieved besides more enemies?
sure we got the talibaan out for awhile - but they are making a comeback.
everything we have done since has made a bad situation infinitely worse in my opinion.
Reply

Keltoi
11-24-2007, 03:54 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
the truth? i don't know. but somehow i don't think daisy cutters, depleted uranium and all the other stuff we have done in afghanistan has done any good, do you? what have we achieved besides more enemies?
sure we got the talibaan out for awhile - but they are making a comeback.
everything we have done since has made a bad situation infinitely worse in my opinion.
We stopped Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, which was the primary objective. As for Afghanistan being worse that it was under the Taliban...I don't buy that for a second. Of course it is still a dangerous place, especially for school teachers and truck drivers, but I think the main problem there is opium production and the corruption it brings to the Afghan government; and of course the warlord phenomenon.

That being said, of course there were many mistakes made in the whole "War on Terror", but I think the price of doing nothing would have been much worse.
Reply

snakelegs
11-24-2007, 04:54 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
We stopped Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, which was the primary objective. As for Afghanistan being worse that it was under the Taliban...I don't buy that for a second. Of course it is still a dangerous place, especially for school teachers and truck drivers, but I think the main problem there is opium production and the corruption it brings to the Afghan government; and of course the warlord phenomenon.

That being said, of course there were many mistakes made in the whole "War on Terror", but I think the price of doing nothing would have been much worse.
well, we agree on one thing - opium is the curse of afghanistan, regardless of regime.
i didn't say afghanistan was worse than it was under the talibaan - just that we did not defeat them - they are making quite a comeback and the country is sinking in to lawlessness.
as for al-qaeda....now they are in iraq, where they were not before.
we have hundreds of times more enemies than we had on 9/11.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-27-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
well, we agree on one thing - opium is the curse of afghanistan, regardless of regime.
i didn't say afghanistan was worse than it was under the talibaan - just that we did not defeat them - they are making quite a comeback and the country is sinking in to lawlessness.
as for al-qaeda....now they are in iraq, where they were not before.
we have hundreds of times more enemies than we had on 9/11.
yes but Iraq is improving and right now, for whatever reason (probably that Bush appears to be more and more of a bumbling ignoramous), our troops arent as commited to Afghanistan. Imagine when a flood of 100,000 troops goes to Afghan, do you think the Taliban will fair so well then? And what are they really accomplishing right now? Yes they have control of some areas, yes some days they gain ground, but others they lose it. They are simply contained right now, they arent being destroyed but they arent making any significant progress either. Watch what happens around mid spring of '08 Afghanistan will become a priority as troop levels decrease in Iraq, it is only logical, Afghanistan is the head and to ultimately solve the problem it must be cut off, the Taliban has quite a fight ahead of them and I believe they will lose.
Reply

Keltoi
11-27-2007, 05:24 PM
Yes, the U.S. isn't that concerned with Afghanistan right now, and for obvious reasons. However, when the troop committment in Iraq goes down, which it will soon, Afghanistan will become more of a focus.
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
11-28-2007, 10:12 PM
Strange and Ironic indeed!. The Yanks spent five years fighting the Sunnis of Iraq, only to go back to were they started. In other words, they realised Sunni Tribes and former Saddam Allies are better friends for Americans than millitant others to combat Iran and the spread of Alqaeda. The allies who are now been hailed as " freedom fighters" are the former remanants and tribal associates of Saddam' regime. This change of direction has less to do with American army and more to with the some sunni resistance taking up arms against the Alqaeda. Both Alqaeda and America are realising that if don't have the support of the population, you will be defeated no matter how big your army is.
Reply

nevesirth
11-28-2007, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Local Iraqi forces have been celebrating what they say is a significant victory against al-Qaeda in the province of Diyala, north of Baghdad.

The men - aligned to local Sunni leaders and once anti-government fighters themselves - claim to have captured up to 60 members of al-Qaeda, including some of the group's regional leaders.

Recent violence blamed on the group has taken its toll, turning residents against an organisation they now feel has let them down, local officials say.

Last month, Osama bin Laden criticised his followers in Iraq for losing the support of the locals.

Husein al-Zubaidi, a Diyala official, said: "Al-Qaeda cheated people under the name of 'jihad' and their actions were against all principles.

"They hurt all Iraqi sects, this is what pushed the national armed groups to face them strongly and bravely."

Former Sunni fighters on Saturday asked the US to stay away, then ambushed members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, killing 18 in a battle that raged for hours north of Baghdad, a former Sunni group leader and Iraqi police said.

Abu Ibrahim, a senior Islamic Army leader, said on Saturday that his fighters killed 18 al-Qaeda fighters and captured 16 in the fight southeast of Samarra, a mostly Sunni city about 90km north of Baghdad.

Anbar example

The most notable sign of shifting alliances has been that of tribal chiefs from Anbar, Iraq's largest Sunni province, joining with the government to fight al-Qaeda.

There are also reports that armed groups once allied to al-Qaeda have started to turn against them.

In a sign the government is working towards reconciliation, 70 former members of Saddam Hussein's party were reinstated to their jobs after they joined the fight against al-Qaida in Anbar, Ali al-Lami, a senior official with the commission that considered their cases, said.

Al-Lami told the Associated Press news agency that the former Baath party members included 12 university professors, officers in the disbanded Iraqi army, former policemen and teachers.

Losing ground

According to a US military commander in Baghdad's southern areas, al-Qaeda is losing ground.

Major-General Rick Lynch, who also monitors military activities in the provinces of Babel, Karbala, Najaf and Wasit, said on Sunday the fighters were losing local support as thousands of former anti-American militias had now allied themselves with the US military.

Lynch also said that the quantity of Iranian bomb-making components being found in Iraq is increasing despite a fall in attacks and 20 Iranian-trained agents are still operating south of Baghdad.

He said: "Iranian influence is dominant at many levels."

Lynch's command is said to cover some of Iraq's most dangerous areas, including the so-called Triangle of Death, south of Baghdad.

'Concerned citizens'

Lynch said around 26,000 Iraqis were now working with the military to help secure the region.

He said: "Al-Qaeda has lost support. It does not have support from the local population."

A large number of the "concerned local citizens" - a term used by the US military - were former fighters who battled US-led forces after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government.

Lynch said nearly 16,000 of the 26,000 "concerned citizens" were being employed by the US military to guard checkpoints, bridges and other infrastructure and act as neighbourhood watchdogs.

In related news, British officers have met Iraqi fighters as part of efforts to end sectarian violence, an army officer said in an interview published on Sunday.

Major-General Paul Newton, a senior British army commander in Iraq, told The Sunday Telegraph that he leads a unit - along with a senior US state department official - that is contacting anti-government fighters and their sympathisers to try to find common ground.

Maliki satisfied

For his part, Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said on Sunday that "terrorist acts" including car bombings and other al-Qaeda-style attacks have dropped by 77 per cent.

He called it a sign that Sunni-Shia violence was nearly gone from Baghdad.

"We are all realising now that what Baghdad was seeing every day - dead bodies in the streets and morgues - is ebbing remarkably," al-Maliki said.

Nevertheless, a trickle of violence continued on Sunday, with at least 10 people killed or found dead around the country.

The toll included a 12-year-old girl in Baghdad's Baladiyat area, who was killed by a roadside bomb that aimed for a US convoy but missed its target, police said.
(More)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...ABAB700DBF.htm
LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply

snakelegs
11-28-2007, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, the U.S. isn't that concerned with Afghanistan right now, and for obvious reasons. However, when the troop committment in Iraq goes down, which it will soon, Afghanistan will become more of a focus.
doesn't it strike you as odd how quickly we lost interest in OBL, al-qaeda and the talibaan and put our focus instead on overthrowing a secular leader? (thereby insuring al-qaeda presence in another country, in the course of "bringing democracy".)
Reply

wilberhum
11-28-2007, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by nevesirth
LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go tell Al Jazeera.:D
Since you have more knowledge then them, maybe they will hire you and pay you big bucks to straighten them out. :?
Reply

Keltoi
11-28-2007, 10:58 PM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
doesn't it strike you as odd how quickly we lost interest in OBL, al-qaeda and the talibaan and put our focus instead on overthrowing a secular leader? (thereby insuring al-qaeda presence in another country, in the course of "bringing democracy".)

Well, I'm not sure this wasn't part of the strategy all along. Afghanistan was a cakewalk, probably even easier than the most optimistic general could have envisioned. With OBL and the Al-Qaeda network being pushed into hiding somewhere inside Pakistan, the question became how to hurt these people enough to hopefully break them permamently. Since it isn't politically feasable to pursue these people inside Pakistan...for obvious reasons, I'm sure the idea was raised as to how to bring these people out of hiding and onto a battlefield of our choosing. I sincerely believe that Iraq was that battlefield. Afghanistan isn't a good battlefield from the standpoint of the "jihadist" crowd because of the U.S. ability to destroy you from any vantage point on the battlefield. There is nowhere to hide. Hence the striking lack of any kind of effective offensive from the enemy in that theater. Look at the number of Al-Qaeda affiliates that flocked to Iraq, including Zarqawi. The goal from the standpoint of the enemy in Iraq was to hand the U.S. a Vietnam type of debacle where the price wasn't worth the reward. They have failed at that task, and the locals are turning against them more every day. If these people are going to be broken, it will be in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Just my two cents.....sorry for the long-winded reply. :D
Reply

snakelegs
11-29-2007, 12:46 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Well, I'm not sure this wasn't part of the strategy all along. Afghanistan was a cakewalk, probably even easier than the most optimistic general could have envisioned. With OBL and the Al-Qaeda network being pushed into hiding somewhere inside Pakistan, the question became how to hurt these people enough to hopefully break them permamently. Since it isn't politically feasable to pursue these people inside Pakistan...for obvious reasons, I'm sure the idea was raised as to how to bring these people out of hiding and onto a battlefield of our choosing. I sincerely believe that Iraq was that battlefield. Afghanistan isn't a good battlefield from the standpoint of the "jihadist" crowd because of the U.S. ability to destroy you from any vantage point on the battlefield. There is nowhere to hide. Hence the striking lack of any kind of effective offensive from the enemy in that theater. Look at the number of Al-Qaeda affiliates that flocked to Iraq, including Zarqawi. The goal from the standpoint of the enemy in Iraq was to hand the U.S. a Vietnam type of debacle where the price wasn't worth the reward. They have failed at that task, and the locals are turning against them more every day. If these people are going to be broken, it will be in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Just my two cents.....sorry for the long-winded reply. :D
this remains to be seen.
thanks for your comments - interesting take.
we shall see.....
Reply

Keltoi
11-29-2007, 04:57 AM
Originally Posted by snakelegs
this remains to be seen.
thanks for your comments - interesting take.
we shall see.....
If you're referring to the Vietnam style debacle, I don't think that remains to be seen at all. The simple truth is that the "jihadists" are not the Vietcong, not by a long shot. Their most effective weapon is the IED device, and the U.S. has adapted to this threat, albeit slowly. If we would have listened to the Israelis on the issue of mine detection years ago we would probably be talking about many fewer American losses. Although bad news will always trump good news in media coverage, the level of violence in Iraq has been steadily declining since the latest troop surge. Most of the American military in Iraq are bored to tears. Of the 150,000 or so U.S. military stationed in Iraq, only a small percentage ever witness or experience anything combat related. Those who do usually have the most dangerous jobs, meaning they get convoy duty. It gets really hairy around the Baghdad Airport road, for example. So no, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. In that aspect they have indeed failed.
Reply

Dawud_uk
11-29-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Well, I'm not sure this wasn't part of the strategy all along. Afghanistan was a cakewalk, probably even easier than the most optimistic general could have envisioned. With OBL and the Al-Qaeda network being pushed into hiding somewhere inside Pakistan, the question became how to hurt these people enough to hopefully break them permamently. Since it isn't politically feasable to pursue these people inside Pakistan...for obvious reasons, I'm sure the idea was raised as to how to bring these people out of hiding and onto a battlefield of our choosing. I sincerely believe that Iraq was that battlefield. Afghanistan isn't a good battlefield from the standpoint of the "jihadist" crowd because of the U.S. ability to destroy you from any vantage point on the battlefield. There is nowhere to hide. Hence the striking lack of any kind of effective offensive from the enemy in that theater. Look at the number of Al-Qaeda affiliates that flocked to Iraq, including Zarqawi. The goal from the standpoint of the enemy in Iraq was to hand the U.S. a Vietnam type of debacle where the price wasn't worth the reward. They have failed at that task, and the locals are turning against them more every day. If these people are going to be broken, it will be in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Just my two cents.....sorry for the long-winded reply. :D
lol,

i find it rediculous you think they can be broken at all, dont you realise the sincere will just come back again and again and reorganise and fight you again and again until victory is complete?

if the muslims do not win in this generation, it will be the next or the one after etc, it does not matter to us when we are victorious (though we'd personally like it to be sooner) because we are certain victory will come as it is the promise of Allah swt and the struggle is what is important not when the victory comes.

so even if you do think you win a battle, or you even think you win a war, still the same enemies are coming back for your children, or childrens-childrens until all the muslim lands are under shariah and the khalifate.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

Omar_Mukhtar
11-29-2007, 08:20 AM
Dawud, when u say Muslims do you mean Alqaeda in Iraq as well? Because they broke every single rule in Islam and the entire humanity.Never before have we seen such indiscriminate killing of innoncent civilians, blood thirstyness and they even blew up sheikhs in Mosques simply because they criticised them. If there was ever a Caliphate, these people would hanged in the strees and every one of them would be rounded up. Look what is happening in Iraq; the Sunnis are even starting to trust the Americans who occupied them and carried out crimes against them more so than the people who fought alongside them. In other words, they destroyed a state and broke the back of the resistance. I pray to Allah swt that these people never resurface in any other Muslim state.
Reply

snakelegs
11-29-2007, 09:11 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
If you're referring to the Vietnam style debacle, I don't think that remains to be seen at all. The simple truth is that the "jihadists" are not the Vietcong, not by a long shot. Their most effective weapon is the IED device, and the U.S. has adapted to this threat, albeit slowly. If we would have listened to the Israelis on the issue of mine detection years ago we would probably be talking about many fewer American losses. Although bad news will always trump good news in media coverage, the level of violence in Iraq has been steadily declining since the latest troop surge. Most of the American military in Iraq are bored to tears. Of the 150,000 or so U.S. military stationed in Iraq, only a small percentage ever witness or experience anything combat related. Those who do usually have the most dangerous jobs, meaning they get convoy duty. It gets really hairy around the Baghdad Airport road, for example. So no, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. In that aspect they have indeed failed.
well i am not at all sure i agree with you on this.
but you are right (the phrase i bolded) and the other good news is that some of the refugees are actually coming home.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-29-2007, 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by Omar_Mukhtar
Dawud, when u say Muslims do you mean Alqaeda in Iraq as well? Because they broke every single rule in Islam and the entire humanity.Never before have we seen such indiscriminate killing of innoncent civilians, blood thirstyness and they even blew up sheikhs in Mosques simply because they criticised them. If there was ever a Caliphate, these people would hanged in the strees and every one of them would be rounded up. Look what is happening in Iraq; the Sunnis are even starting to trust the Americans who occupied them and carried out crimes against them more so than the people who fought alongside them. In other words, they destroyed a state and broke the back of the resistance. I pray to Allah swt that these people never resurface in any other Muslim state.
It is good to see that there are some good rational Muslims that realize the difference between fighting for ones land and rights and fighting for the sake of killing those who dont share your views

PEACE
Reply

Keltoi
11-29-2007, 03:36 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
lol,

i find it rediculous you think they can be broken at all, dont you realise the sincere will just come back again and again and reorganise and fight you again and again until victory is complete?

if the muslims do not win in this generation, it will be the next or the one after etc, it does not matter to us when we are victorious (though we'd personally like it to be sooner) because we are certain victory will come as it is the promise of Allah swt and the struggle is what is important not when the victory comes.

so even if you do think you win a battle, or you even think you win a war, still the same enemies are coming back for your children, or childrens-childrens until all the muslim lands are under shariah and the khalifate.

Abu Abdullah
Well, you are working off an assumption that the enemy I'm referring to in Iraq and elsewhere are simply good Muslims. With that mindset it is hard to have a realistic and worthwhile discussion with you on the issue. Muslims aren't the enemy in Iraq, they are nothing but butchers who call themselves Muslims. Call me naive, but I do not accept that a true Muslim would intentionally kill women and children in a marketplace with a suicide bomb, car bomb, RPG, whatever. The sad truth of the matter is that these butchers you call heroes are responsible for killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims. I already know your response, it is a conspiracy. If you can't face simple reality, I don't see how you will ever produce your utopian version of a caliphate.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-29-2007, 03:45 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071129/...cbjQ564VFX6GMA

6,000 Sunnis join pact with US in Iraq
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 28, 9:18 PM ET


HAWIJA, Iraq - Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds.

The new alliance — called the single largest single volunteer mobilization since the war began — covers the "last gateway" for groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq seeking new havens in northern Iraq, U.S. military officials said.

U.S. commanders have tried to build a ring around insurgents who fled military offensives launched earlier this year in the western Anbar province and later into Baghdad and surrounding areas. In many places, the U.S.-led battles were given key help from tribal militias — mainly Sunnis — that had turned against al-Qaida and other groups.

Extremists have sought new footholds in northern areas once loyal to Saddam Hussein's Baath party as the U.S.-led gains have mounted across central regions. But their ability to strike near the capital remains.

A woman wearing an explosive-rigged belt blew herself up near an American patrol near Baqouba, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, the military announced Wednesday. The blast on Tuesday — a rare attack by a female suicide bomber — wounded seven U.S. troops and five Iraqis, the statement said.

The ceremony to pledge the 6,000 new fighters was presided over by dozen sheiks — each draped in black robes trimmed with gold braiding — who signed the contract on behalf of tribesmen at a small U.S. outpost in north-central Iraq.

For about $275 a month — nearly the salary for the typical Iraqi policeman — the tribesmen will man about 200 security checkpoints beginning Dec. 7, supplementing hundreds of Iraqi forces already in the area.

About 77,000 Iraqis nationwide, mostly Sunnis, have broken with the insurgents and joined U.S.-backed self-defense groups.

Those groups have played a major role in the lull in violence: 648 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead in November to date, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press. This compares with 2,155 in May as the so-called "surge" of nearly 30,000 additional American troops gained momentum.

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq have also dropped sharply. So far this month, the military has reported 34 deaths, compared with 38 in October. In June, 101 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

Village mayors and others who signed Wednesday's agreement say about 200 militants have sought refuge in the area, about 30 miles southwest of Kirkuk on the edge of northern Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region. Hawija is a predominantly Sunni Arab cluster of villages which has long been an insurgent flashpoint.

The recently arrived militants have waged a campaign of killing and intimidation to try to establish a new base, said Sheikh Khalaf Ali Issa, mayor of Zaab village.

"They killed 476 of my citizens, and I will not let them continue their killing," Issa said.

With the help of the new Sunni allies, "the Hawija area will be an obstacle to militants, rather than a pathway for them," said Maj. Sean Wilson, with the Army's 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division. "They're another set of eyes that we needed in this critical area."

By defeating militants in Hawija, U.S. and Iraqi leaders hope to keep them away from Kirkuk, an ethnically diverse city that is also the hub of Iraq's northern oil fields.

"They want to go north into Kirkuk and wreak havoc there, and that's exactly what we're trying to avoid," Army Maj. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, the top U.S. commander in northern Iraq, told The Associated Press this week.

Kurds often consider Kurkik part of their ancestral homeland and often refer to the city as the "Kurdish Jerusalem." Saddam, however, relocated tens of thousands of pro-regime Arabs to the city in the 1980s and 1990s under his "Arabization" policy.

The Iraqi government has begun resettling some of those Arabs to their home regions, making room for thousands of Kurds who have gradually returned to Kirkuk since Saddam's ouster.

Tension has been rising over the city's status — whether it will join the semi-autonomous Kurdish region or continue being governed by Baghdad.

"Hawija is the gateway through which all our communities — Kurdish, Turkomen and Arab alike — can become unsafe," said Abu Saif al-Jabouri, mayor of al-Multaqa village north of Kirkuk. "Do I love my neighbor in Hawija? That question no longer matters. I must work to help him, because his safety helps me."

In Baghdad, a bus convoy arrived carrying hundreds of refugees home from Syria. The buses, funded by the Iraqi government, left Damascus on Tuesday as part of a plan to speed the return of the estimated 2.2 million Iraqis who have fled to neighboring Syria and Jordan.

Also Wednesday, an Iraqi journalist Dhia al-Kawaz who said 11 members of his family — two sisters, their husbands and their seven children — were killed in their Baghdad home challenged the government's denial of the deaths.

The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, insisted that the deaths — reportedly Sunday in a northern neighborhood of Baghdad known to be a Shiite militia stronghold — never took place.

Al-Kawaz, who has lived outside Iraq for 20 years, told Al-Jazeera television: "I ask the spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh to let all of my family appear on TV."

The media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders condemned the attack and claimed Iraqi police at a nearby checkpoint failed to intervene.
Reply

MTAFFI
11-29-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Well, you are working off an assumption that the enemy I'm referring to in Iraq and elsewhere are simply good Muslims. With that mindset it is hard to have a realistic and worthwhile discussion with you on the issue. Muslims aren't the enemy in Iraq, they are nothing but butchers who call themselves Muslims. Call me naive, but I do not accept that a true Muslim would intentionally kill women and children in a marketplace with a suicide bomb, car bomb, RPG, whatever. The sad truth of the matter is that these butchers you call heroes are responsible for killing thousands upon thousands of Muslims. I already know your response, it is a conspiracy. If you can't face simple reality, I don't see how you will ever produce your utopian version of a caliphate.
with some it is pointless to go through this since they have their view and you have yours. (Even though you are exactly right)

These people we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan do not fight in the way of Allah, they fight for greed and power.
Reply

MTAFFI
12-04-2007, 04:18 PM
http://real-us.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/2.../ts_nm/iraq_dc

Forty Qaeda leaders killed or caught in Iraq: U.S.
By Paul Tait 2 hours, 15 minutes ago


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Forty senior al Qaeda in Iraq members were either captured or killed in November, including a senior adviser to the Sunni Islamist group's leader, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.


Violence levels in Iraq have fallen to their lowest levels since January 2006 after a security crackdown, which included a deployment of an extra 30,000 U.S. troops, targeting al Qaeda and Shi'ite militias across the country.

But while attacks have fallen by 55 percent since the additional troops were fully deployed in mid-June, allowing thousands of Iraqis who had fled abroad to return home, U.S. commanders say violence could easily flare again.

"There is no question that al Qaeda in Iraq remains a dangerous and vicious threat to the Iraqi people and to the security forces and the coalition forces," U.S. military spokesman Major-General Kevin Bergner told a news conference.

"Al Qaeda continues to try to seek spectacular attacks which were so damaging and which continue to be so damaging in inciting sectarian tensions ... we still have a tough fight ahead of us even amidst the progress," he said.

Bergner said one al Qaeda member killed last month had been identified as Abu Maysara, a Syrian he said was a senior adviser to al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

He said Maysara was killed along with five other al Qaeda fighters in a raid on a building near Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad on November 17.

"EXTREMIST GUIDANCE"

The six were killed when U.S. ground forces called in air strikes after coming under fire from the building. Bergner said Maysara had been identified by DNA tests.

"Abu Maysara was responsible for providing extremist guidance and justifications on terrorist matters to Abu al-Masri," Bergner said.

Maysara was captured in November 2004 but escaped from Iraq's Badush prison in March 2007.

He was an adviser to al Masri's predecessor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Falluja, west of Baghdad, where al Qaeda fought battles against U.S. forces in 2003 and 2004, Bergner said.

"He also ran an illegal court in Falluja that was responsible for the brutal murders of countless innocent Iraqis," he added.

Maysara usually signed off on al Qaeda in Iraq Web statements for Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. and Iraqi military raid in June 2006.

Bergner said Maysara was one of nine senior al Qaeda figures killed last month, with another 31 captured. Of those 40, four were described as senior level emirs and nine as cell leaders.

The fight against al Qaeda has shifted from its former stronghold in western Anbar province to areas north and south of Baghdad after the troop increase and growing use of local police units organized by mainly Sunni Arab tribal sheikhs.

Bergner said the recently completed Operation Iron Hammer north of Baghdad had "captured or killed hundreds of terrorists." It has been replaced by a new offensive named Operation Iron Reaper, which involves four U.S. combat brigades and three Iraqi army divisions.

Earlier on Tuesday, Iraq's cabinet agreed to seek a final one-year extension on the U.N. Security Council mandate allowing U.S.-led foreign troops to conduct a wide range of military operations in Iraq.

The current one-year mandate expires at the end of 2007. When the U.N. mandate ends in 2008, bilateral agreements will govern U.S.-Iraqi relations. The White House has said formal talks will begin early next year on the future relationship.

(Additional reporting by Dean Yates)
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-16-2007, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
So you think the way to handle someone who is running around killing people, is to fine him?
I find the whole legal issue very interesting:

Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
The victim has the right to kill him... or accept blood money.
You know, this is exactly what the U.S. military does in Iraq. It pays "blood money" to the families of the civilians who were killed by their soldiers, to compensate them. So far, only the U.S. military is allowed the right to refer to the deaths of it's soldiers as 'murdered'. But when we kill, it's an "accident" - and even in cases like the last "Blackwater" incident... Iraqis do not have the right to convict them in their own courts.

So, yes... it is written this way in both lands, that this is the accepted way to "handle someone who is running around killing people."

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-16-2007, 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, the U.S. isn't that concerned with Afghanistan right now, and for obvious reasons. However, when the troop committment in Iraq goes down, which it will soon, Afghanistan will become more of a focus.
Really? I heard there's more of an interest in pursuing a coflict with Iran? Have you been tracking the new deployments and the anti-missile defense project? Really interesting stuff. Don't think Bush has any interest in Osama bin Laden.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Gator
12-16-2007, 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
So far, only the U.S. military is allowed the right to refer to the deaths of it's soldiers as 'murdered'.
Could you give me a source of the U.S. military calling its KIA soldiers murdered? Or the order proscribing this?

Thanks.
Reply

Keltoi
12-16-2007, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Really? I heard there's more of an interest in pursuing a coflict with Iran? Have you been tracking the new deployments and the anti-missile defense project? Really interesting stuff. Don't think Bush has any interest in Osama bin Laden.

The Ninth Scribe
There isn't going to be a war with Iran, at least not as a result of U.S. military offensive action. Preparing for conflict isn't going to war. We prepared for conflict with the Soviet Union for years.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-16-2007, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by Gator
Could you give me a source of the U.S. military calling its KIA soldiers murdered? Or the order proscribing this?

Thanks.
My bad. The writ of law doesn't use the term "murder" even though the punishment is the same, and they're still arguing over definitions, as follows:

The distinction is an important one, said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It’s not a crime to be an enemy combatant,” he said.

Lawful enemy combatants are, broadly speaking, uniformed soldiers fighting for a government. Unlawful enemy combatants, according to the Military Commissions Act, are everyone else who has engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States, including members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.


I think I should point out the portion that determines a "lawful" combatant is very sketchy, since the status of the "uniformed soldiers fighting for a government" depends entirely on whether or not the United States chooses to recognize that government.

For instance, if the above holds true for "lawful enemy combatants" then none of the Taliban fighters have commited a crime. Likewise, none of Saddam Hussein's fighters have done anything wrong... and yet they are being held and Bush does seek to charge them as one would charge a murderer. Giving the charge a new name or different title doesn't actually change much, but I do see your point.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-16-2007, 07:48 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
There isn't going to be a war with Iran, at least not as a result of U.S. military offensive action. Preparing for conflict isn't going to war. We prepared for conflict with the Soviet Union for years.
True.
Reply

Resigned
12-16-2007, 08:33 PM
I think it’s worth looking at the “Third Geneva Convention” Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” of August 12, 1949–specifically Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 6.


Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b ) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c ) that of carrying arms openly; (d ) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


http://www.genevaconventions.org/

The definition of “combatants” who are entitled to treatment as Prisoners of War is further expanded by “PROTOCOL I, Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts”, of 8 June 1977, specifically Article 44, paragraph 2 and 3.



2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly;(a) during each military engagement, and (b ) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
I think that most of the people being held in Gitmo fall into one of these categories.


Let’s recap:

(b ) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c ) that of carrying arms openly; (d ) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Would anyone care to explain how the the Talibums or AQ fufilled these three?


violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.


3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population

Would anyone care to explain how the the Talibums or AQ fufilled these conditions?
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-16-2007, 08:57 PM
Originally Posted by Resigned
I think it’s worth looking at the “Third Geneva Convention” Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” of August 12, 1949–specifically Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 6.
This is all very interesting but the Bush administration wants nothing to do with Geneva Conventions, and has disqualified same because it prevented him from pursuing his own avenues, namely the use of torture... or should I say "agressive interrogation techniques" to gather evidence that didn't exist at the time of the arrest. And why do you act like the United States didn't know the Taliban governed Afghanistan? Of course it did, or are you defining what you feel is a "legal" government? There is no such law that dictates that a government has to be democratic in order to be recognized... take Saudi Arabia, for example. So far as I can tell the Taliban's only crime was refusing an extradition request.

If that's all it takes to invade a country to get a crook, then I want the U.S. to invade the Vatican so we can arrest and prosecute Cardinal Bernard Law. He was supposed to face charges for his role in destroying some 400 families here, but the pope wisked him off to the Vatican where he was promoted... to arch priest! Needless to say, the Vatican is not obligated to honor our extradition requests either.

At any rate, the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply here, per Bush's orders. Whether the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia fullfilled the given protocols is entirely a matter of perspective. I want peace too, but if my country were invaded, I can promise you, no one would get any until well after the occupation was removed. I imagine most would feel the same way. Sure some would sell-out in order to feed their families... but that wouldn't make them right. It would just make them desparate.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Resigned
12-16-2007, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
This is all very interesting but the Bush administration wants nothing to do with Geneva Conventions, and has disqualified same because it prevented him from pursuing his own avenues, namely the use of torture... or should I say "agressive interrogation techniques" to gather evidence that didn't exist at the time of the arrest. And why do you act like the United States didn't know the Taliban governed Afghanistan? Of course it did, or are you defining what you feel is a "legal" government? There is no such law that dictates that a government has to be democratic in order to be recognized... take Saudi Arabia, for example. So far as I can tell the Taliban's only crime was refusing an extradition request.
The torture or “agressive interrogation techniques" you identify is, by all accounts, fairly mild in comparison to humans being held hostage for the purpose of making snuff films wherein people who bound and gagged are being beheaded for later broadcast by al-jizz.

And since when did the Talibums “govern” Afghanistan? Unless I’m missing something, they seized only partial control of a hapless nation through a reign of terror and intimidation. The fact that their actions of harboring and abetting a mass murderer made them complicit in the actions of Bin Laden.



If that's all it takes to invade a country to get a crook, then I want the U.S. to invade the Vatican so we can arrest and prosecute Cardinal Bernard Law. He was supposed to face charges for his role in destroying some 400 families here, but the pope wisked him off to the Vatican where he was promoted... to arch priest! Needless to say, the Vatican is not obligated to honor our extradition requests either.
Why would the U.S. have any interest in invading Vatican City on your behalf? And why the double standard - You were the one whining about the Taliban’s only crime being refusal of an extradition request. It sounds like a similar situation.

At any rate, the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply here, per Bush's orders. Whether the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia fullfilled the given protocols is entirely a matter of perspective. I want peace too, but if my country were invaded, I can promise you, no one would get any until well after the occupation was removed. I imagine most would feel the same way. Sure some would sell-out in order to feed their families... but that wouldn't make them right. It would just make them desparate.

The Ninth Scribe
It’s actually not a matter of perspective. It’s a matter of fact that the Taliban and AQ operate under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending in that civilian population.
Reply

muthenna
12-18-2007, 07:08 PM
AlQaidah in Iraq doesnt exist anymore its Islamic State of Iraq (many groups joined together amongst them AlQaidah in Iraq), as for the traitors (nationalistic inclined not islamicly) these are thugs and bandits like Abu Risha and others who aren't practicing muslims at all.
For ex. in the video of AnsarSunah they tell that Ramadi was "taken" by americans not by force but by economic strangulation that led to the rise of the socalled traitorous "Awakening" in that area, many of them are militias that dont answer to their tribe, beside what US of Losers say.
These filthy tactics are being used in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.
Here are the so called "Hamas of Iraq" (as they call themselves) who were part of revolutionary 1920 brigades:






Reply

muthenna
12-18-2007, 07:10 PM






Reply

muthenna
12-18-2007, 07:21 PM


Alhamdulilah many fighters from other groups seing the treachery, are flocking to Islamic State of Iraq and giving pledge bayah to Abu Umer Bagdadi, as from Islamic army of Iraq entire sectors have joined Islamic State of Iraq...
But of course you dont hear this from american failing propaganda

Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-18-2007, 08:03 PM
Originally Posted by Resigned
The torture or “agressive interrogation techniques" you identify is, by all accounts, fairly mild in comparison to humans being held hostage for the purpose of making snuff films wherein people who bound and gagged are being beheaded for later broadcast by al-jizz.
So let me get this straight. You think the ISI just grabs people off the street to torture and execute them without any sense of due process? Funny, that's not what happened to Jill Carroll and I happen to have the minutes of those hearings... sorry to dissappoint, but quite a number of people were released (men and women), because they were found to be... innocent. I know the western media has consistantly misreported events by confusing the acts of neighborhood gangs with those of the Mujahideen, but I've found ways to separate them. It wasn't that hard.

Originally Posted by Resigned
And since when did the Talibums “govern” Afghanistan? Unless I’m missing something, they seized only partial control of a hapless nation through a reign of terror and intimidation. The fact that their actions of harboring and abetting a mass murderer made them complicit in the actions of Bin Laden.
Govern, rule... what's the difference? The U.S. was aware of this arrangement the whole time and never gave a crap about the Afghan people - that's not was all this is about. Come to that, they've never given a crap about the Saudis (for their public beheadings and what have you) or the Chinese either... but that's only because they have to respect those governments. We can't even declare the genocide of a the Armenians in Turkey because Bush doesn't care what sin an 'allied government' commits. But to get back to Afghanistan, the words:

And before their wounds had healed and their grief had ended {referring to the Soviet War}, they were invaded without right by your unjust governments, without stopping to think about or reflect on Bush's claim that this invasion was a response to the events of the 11th, although--as I mentioned previously--the events of Manhattan were a response to the American-Israeli coalition's murder of our people in Palestine and Lebanon. And it was I who was responsible for 9/11, and I stress that all Afghans--both government and people--had no knowledge of those events and America knows that, because some of the Taliban's ministers fell into its hands as captives, and they were interrogated and that became known.

Originally Posted by Resigned
Why would the U.S. have any interest in invading Vatican City on your behalf?
Not my behalf. None of my sons were raped by their priests. But what about... the LAW? I brought this incident up because I wanted you to understand why I have a problem with Bush's mentality concerning the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't believe for a minute that this is for the good of the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and so forth. Judging from the weapons sales alone, I expect it's all for profit... at our expense and the expense of all these other people. But that's just my humble opinion.

The Vatican has aligned itself with child rapists by offering them safe-haven and Turkey has commited genocide... yet they are not being held to account, nor are they obligated to extradite the criminals who have harmed the American people. So what of American values and the rights of the people?

Originally Posted by Resigned
It’s actually not a matter of perspective. It’s a matter of fact that the Taliban and AQ operate under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending in that civilian population.
On the contrary, it is a matter of perspective. The Catholic church operates under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending into our population... unless your saying that child rape is not "harming the civilian population"? The fireworks from this fall-out, by the way, only began here in Boston... but have since reached to California and Alaska. Likewise, Iraq's idiot in command, Maliki, is about to commit the very same crime for which Saddam Hussein was hung - he wants to take out the kurdish rebels and Sunni resistance, right? Can't wait.

Not arguing with you, but I just want you to understand what goes on in my mind when I see so much of the pot calling the kettle black. Bush turns a blind eye to a number of other atrocities because it suits his purpose to do so. This, none of it, has anything to do with: What's good for the people. Only a pidgeon would be satisfied with those feable crumbs.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Resigned
12-18-2007, 09:41 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
So let me get this straight. You think the ISI just grabs people off the street to torture and execute them without any sense of due process? Funny, that's not what happened to Jill Carroll and I happen to have the minutes of those hearings... sorry to dissappoint, but quite a number of people were released (men and women), because they were found to be... innocent. I know the western media has consistantly misreported events by confusing the acts of neighborhood gangs with those of the Mujahideen, but I've found ways to separate them. It wasn't that hard.
It’s fine to claim that you have some special knowledge of the due process that is afforded by the “Mujahideen” and whether or not you possess any minutes of hearings is only a claim with no corroboration. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as the “due process” that is practiced by the Mujahideen”. What evidence was collected during discovery? How many witnesses were deposed? What physical evidence was offered during testimony? How many witnesses were cross examined? How many witnesses were cross examined?

We’ll await your lucid response!

Further, you may wish to use the “quote” function to actually address what people write out in their posts. Did I ever claim that:
”the ISI just grabs people off the street to torture and execute them without any sense of due process/”

You will find the answer to be, no.


Govern, rule... what's the difference?
There’s a big difference. Your holy warrior heroes were always a threat to the U.S. but we acted with restraint in not taking much harsher action until 9-11 happened.

You dismiss the fact that the Talibums had no authority to govern of rule other than a perceived holy mandate to bludgeon hapless villages and hamlets into their version of the 7th century. They brutalized an entire population yet you would allow that rather than to provide some mechanism whereby that nation might find a way to provide some hope of allowing girls to attend school or women to walk to the market without being beaten with sticks.

These brutal, reprehensible acts of barbarism are given a silent imprimatur. They are tacitly approved every time a "real" Muslim doesn't speak out with outrage in protest of such behavior. There just isn't a mass, coordinated, and universal outcry among Muslims worldwide over this madness. There are prewritten, bloodless public announcements of condemnation which are read and then folded up and put away until the next "isolated incident" requires some apologetics. It's just damage control. Window dressing for a building on fire.


The U.S. was aware of this arrangement the whole time and never gave a crap about the Afghan people - that's not was all this is about. Come to that, they've never given a crap about the Saudis (for their public beheadings and what have you) or the Chinese either... but that's only because they have to respect those governments. We can't even declare the genocide of a the Armenians in Turkey because Bush doesn't care what sin an 'allied government' commits. But to get back to Afghanistan, the words:

And before their wounds had healed and their grief had ended {referring to the Soviet War}, they were invaded without right by your unjust governments, without stopping to think about or reflect on Bush's claim that this invasion was a response to the events of the 11th, although--as I mentioned previously--the events of Manhattan were a response to the American-Israeli coalition's murder of our people in Palestine and Lebanon. And it was I who was responsible for 9/11, and I stress that all Afghans--both government and people--had no knowledge of those events and America knows that, because some of the Taliban's ministers fell into its hands as captives, and they were interrogated and that became known.
We never gave a crap until our nation was attacked by Islamic terrorists who were aided, abetted and protected by the Talibums. Apparently you care little about the motivations for the U.S. responding to the attack on our soil. You would prefer to makes excuses for it.

You seem to forget that muslims have a history of instigating wars and then calling for a “time-out” when the victims of their aggression respond with force. I can cite several relevant examples if you wish.



Not my behalf. None of my sons were raped by their priests. But what about... the LAW? I brought this incident up because I wanted you to understand why I have a problem with Bush's mentality concerning the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't believe for a minute that this is for the good of the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and so forth. Judging from the weapons sales alone, I expect it's all for profit... at our expense and the expense of all these other people. But that's just my humble opinion.
One option is to turn Afghanistan over to the Talibums and simply allow them to pick up where they left off - public executions, a 7th century social order, hatred and denigration of women... basically, the worst elements of humanity.

The Vatican has aligned itself with child rapists by offering them safe-haven
You should write a letter to the Pope protesting such behavior. As another option, email Muqtada "Chubby Jihad" al-Sadr and ask him to pen a fatwa. What do you want from me?


and Turkey has commited genocide...
See above. Or, as a way to placate your insensate rage, you can always “blame America”.



yet they are not being held to account, nor are they obligated to extradite the criminals who have harmed the American people. So what of American values and the rights of the people?
…and your holy warrior heroes are car bombing men, women and children in Iraq, every day, of every month. Life’s not always fair.

I see as a central theme in your post(s), a certain whining about your need to hold the U.S. accountable for every aberration, injustice and hurt feeling that anyone may experience. I’m not going to apologize for every grievance you may have or the fact that you are being vocal about being at the end of a wagging finger that takes offense at every action of the “Great Satan”.


On the contrary, it is a matter of perspective. The Catholic church operates under the premise of explicitly putting civilian lives in danger by blending into our population... unless your saying that child rape is not "harming the civilian population"? The fireworks from this fall-out, by the way, only began here in Boston... but have since reached to California and Alaska. Likewise, Iraq's idiot in command, Maliki, is about to commit the very same crime for which Saddam Hussein was hung - he wants to take out the kurdish rebels and Sunni resistance, right? Can't wait.
The Catholic Church has been held accountable (and is still being held accountable), for the crimes of Priests. At the very least, there is due process where victims can have their day in court. Enter a Madrassa in Pakistan and see if you have similar recourse to address your grievance.

You have an obvious antagonistic relationship with the Catholic Church. There’s really nothing I can do to assist your with that.



Not arguing with you, but I just want you to understand what goes on in my mind when I see so much of the pot calling the kettle black. Bush turns a blind eye to a number of other atrocities because it suits his purpose to do so. This, none of it, has anything to do with: What's good for the people. Only a pidgeon would be satisfied with those feable crumbs.

The Ninth Scribe
Well, you know as well as I do that if the U.S. intercedes in most any part of the world, it’s decried as “interfering in the affairs of…”. When we step back and insist that warring tribes work out their differences, we’re described as “abandoning the peace process…”

Anyway, if you need something to add to your repertoire of “I hate you because…” you can sum the number of Iraqi’s murdered by the Mujahideen, add that number to those killed during the last decade in the jihad fronts of the Sudan (200,000±) and Algeria (120,000±) and you've got yourself a city's worth of murder victims. But of course, it doesn't stop in Sudan, Algeria, and Darfur.
Reply

Cognescenti
12-18-2007, 11:03 PM
Originally Posted by muthenna
[

Alhamdulilah many fighters from other groups seing the treachery, are flocking to Islamic State of Iraq and giving pledge bayah to Abu Umer Bagdadi, as from Islamic army of Iraq entire sectors have joined Islamic State of Iraq...
But of course you dont hear this from american failing propaganda
muthenna;

I suspect I may not be the only one having difficulty following your comments. Could you explain to me where the Peoples Front of Judea fits into this?

Reply

aamirsaab
12-20-2007, 12:11 PM
:sl:
Old threads should be put down. Like this one.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2015, 01:27 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-03-2013, 08:16 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2010, 06:39 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2007, 03:55 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2005, 08:45 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!