Unconventional thinking about the Middle East.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Yeah, I’ll Say It: Witness the Death Throes of the Sunni Insurgency

The average Sunni insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, defeated, and hunted. The more cynical insurgents are focusing on turning a quick buck to ‘retire’ to a calmer life outside of Iraq.

Don’t take my word for it; here’s Ghaith Abdul-Ahad reporting the situation on the ground in yesterday’s Guardian:


"Its not a good time to be a Sunni in Baghdad," Abu Omar told me in a low voice. He had been on the Americans' wanted list for three years but I had never seen him so anxious; he had trimmed his beard in the close-cropped Shia style and kept looking towards the door. His brother had been kidnapped a few days before, he told me, and he believed he was next on a Shia militia's list. He had fled his home in the north of the city and was staying with relatives in a Sunni stronghold in west Baghdad.

He was more despondent than angry. "We Sunni are to blame," he said. "In my area some ignorant al-Qaida guys have been kidnapping poor Shia farmers, killing them and throwing their bodies in the river. I told them: 'This is not jihad. You can't kill all the Shia! This is wrong! The Shia militias are like rabid dogs - why provoke them?' "

Then he said: "I am trying to talk to the Americans. I want to give them assurances that no one will attack them in our area if they stop the Shia militias from coming."

This man who had spent the last three years fighting the Americans was now willing to talk to them, not because he wanted to make peace but because he saw the Americans as the lesser of two evils. He was wrestling with the same dilemma as many Sunni insurgent leaders, beginning to doubt the wisdom of their alliance with al-Qaida extremists.

Another insurgent commander told me: "At the beginning al-Qaida had the money and the organisation, and we had nothing." But this alliance soon dragged the insurgents and then the whole Sunni community into confrontation with the Shia militias as al-Qaida and other extremists massacred thousands of Shia civilians. Insurgent commanders such as Abu Omar soon found themselves outnumbered and outgunned, fighting organised militias backed by the Shia-dominated security forces.



He looked nervously at them: suggestions of talking to the Americans could easily have him labelled as traitor. "Where is the jihad and the mujahideen?" he continued. "Baghdad has become a Shia town. Our brothers are being slaughtered every day! Where are these al-Qaida heroes? One neighbourhood after another will be lost if we don't work on a strategy."

The taxi driver commander, who sat cross-legged on a sofa, joined in: "If the Americans leave we will be slaughtered." A big-bellied man waved his hands dismissively: "We will massacre the Shia and show them who are the Sunnis! They couldn't have done anything without the Americans' support."

When the meeting was over the taxi driver went out to check the road, then the rest followed. "Don't look up, we could be monitored, Shia spies are everywhere," said the big man. The next day the taxi driver was arrested.

By December Abu Omar's worst fears were being realised. The Sunnis had become squeezed into a corner fighting two sides at the same time. But by then he had disappeared; his body was never found.


[The full text of the Guardian story is posted in the comments section]

Despite coming at the height of political and bureaucratic mismanagement, the situation in Iraq has turned around—and that for the better—on its own, and it did that because of the sense of fatigue and aimlessness that has set in among most of the Sunni insurgents, and because the Iraqi state took the worst of the storm and is still standing.

Staying the course actually brought forth dividends: all the vectors for an eventual victory look good.

Sending 21,500 fresh troops to Baghdad and Ramadi is more or less superfluous, yet it will catalyze these vectors for the better, but make no mistake: the ‘surge’ did not turn matters around since they’ve already turned already. The new batch; Gates, Petraeus, and Crocker will get all the kudos from the commentators who’ve staked their name on the ‘Iraq-is-Over’ storyline. These folks will call the ‘turnaround’ a miracle, and they will sing the praises of the aforementioned trio—possibly even paving the way for a likely presidential bid (2012, 2016?) for that ultra-ambitious chap, Petraeus; a consummate showman.

McCain also stands to reap some fruits for 2008.

The commentators will begrudge Bush and his team—especially those ‘nefarious’ neoconservatives—any credit in getting it right; those who have been so thoroughly maligned will await that scrupulous revisionist historian who’ll put together the story of this war after all the shrillness had subsided.

I began to write about this sense of fatigue creeping into the insurgency back in October:


The insurgency, in all its jihadist, Ba’athist and Sunni strands, has a “brain” or rather a “brain trust.” This “brain” resides in Amman, which has become a sort of Davos-like resort where the insurgent “elite” can brainstorm and ponder their future strategies. This is where they figure out their finances and decide whether to ratchet-up the scope of the insurgency.

Here is latest stuff I’ve been hearing from this “brain”:

-“We can’t maintain the momentum over an extended period of time.” The insurgency can only sustain itself in Iraq by projecting a sense of victory. It needs to do that because the losses that it is sustaining in terms of expertise, personnel and treasure are becoming harder and harder to replenish. The Americans and the Iraqi state are getting better at shoving back, and this is acutely showcased by improvements in intelligence gathering, as well as the increasing boldness of the Iraqi police and army in standing-up to the aggressors. The insurgency had previously maintained the rhythm of consecutive victories by carrying the fight from the rural periphery right up to the gates of Baghdad’s Green Zone. The next step would have been to storm the last bastion of the Americans and Iraqi state. But in the last 12 weeks (since the start of the “Battle of Baghdad” operations) the insurgents were pushed back and away. This has created a sense of frustration among the rank and file. The comments made yesterday by Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell about the relative slow-down in Operation Forward Together are very surprising to me. Many parts of Baghdad where the Sunni insurgency had gone unchallenged over the last few months had significantly quieted down and reverted back to government control. Contrary to Caldwell’s assessment, things are going moderately well.

-“We need to make one last push before bringing the Americans to the negotiating table.” Hence the “Tet Offensive”-Lite now featuring in most major Sunni towns. Instead of storming the Green Zone gates, the insurgents plan to knock politely and ask for admittance. There isn’t a unified command giving marching orders. Rather, there is a generally accepted timetable by all the forces carrying arms in synchronizing their assaults. The “brain” is very much aware of the November elections coming up in the United States, as well as the report to be subsequently submitted by the congressionally-mandated Baker-Hamilton Commission on alternative policy options for Iraq. However, the “brain”’s intention for this particular offensive was to hold down territory in Ramadi, Baghdad, Mosul and some chunks of Diyala Province. Under such conditions, the Americans would surely cry “Uncle!”—the insurgents reasoned. But the latter were badly beaten back in Mosul, and failed to make a serious bid to control territory anywhere else.

-“Once we are ready to negotiate, we will have to break our alliance with the Saddamist-Ba’athists and with Al-Qaeda.” The Saddamist-Ba’athists would like to erase all that has happened since April 9, 2003 by re-instating the ancien regime, as is. Al-Qaeda harbors plans for launching the state of the caliphate from Iraq. Both these agendas are seen as unrealistic by the bulk of the “insurgent brain,” who would rather achieve a disproportionate measure of Sunni authority over Iraq’s other components and themselves replacing the Shi'as and the Kurds as America’s long-term allies. They include ideological Ba’athists, deeply sectarian Sunnis, and “moderate” Islamists. To do this, they need to purge the hardcore radicals from their midst. The Saddamists have sensed this impending outcome and so has Al-Qaeda. The Saddamists are reaffirming their “presence” through publicity stunts such as the recent demonstrations in Haweija calling for Saddam to be reinstated, while Al-Qaeda has hastily declared “The Islamic State of Iraq.” In the past few days, there have been press reports claiming that this “brain” is currently holding talks with the Americans in Amman, under the auspices of Jordan’s CIA-trained mukhaberat, the Jordanian Intelligence Directorate. I don’t think these negotiations will go very far: the American public will not stomach a peace treaty with those who have American blood on their hands.


I also wrote a related column under the title, Iraq is Succeeding, followed by Something is Changing.

I also realized that Saddam’s hanging would knock the wind out of the Ba’athist sails. That horrible party had become so fixated in its Saddam worship to the point that life and purpose after Saddam were beyond contemplation. I was taken back when I first observed this phenomenon in November, and wrote about it then. The aftermath of the tyrant’s hanging showed that all those clenched fists of rage punching the air did not materialize into a spike of violence. If anything, the violence seems to be damping down.

And the Ba’athists will not find another ‘real’ leader: c’mon Izzet al-Douri? Are you kidding? The only person with leadership potential is Muhammad Younis al-Ahmad, but a source tells me that he’s been expelled from the Ba’ath command, and is sulking somewhere in Syria.

The remaining Ba’athist insurgents will dissolve into Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq. Al-Qaeda has been putting out its own ‘tough love’ brand of expansion lately; they’re ‘bitch-slapping’ the likes of the 1920 Revolution Brigades into submission. For the most part, this expansion is working because of the pervading sense of aimlessness among the other insurgent strands, whereas Al-Qaeda enjoys the clarity of zealotry and fantasy. But Al-Qaeda is really taking a beating as the events on Haifa Street, Baladruz and others are showing. The Americans and the Iraqis are getting better at counterinsurgency.

It should also be noted that Saddam was hung on the first day of 'Eid, while the last day of 'Eid was supposed to mark the end of a massive Al-Qaeda offensive, declared by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, against the Americans and the Iraqi state. So the anger over Saddam’s hanging, and the Al-Qaeda offensive, overlapped by a few days, and yet there really wasn’t an upsurge of mayhem. That’s something to ponder.

The other interesting story is that the insurgency became about communal survival for the Sunnis, rather than communal revival. Suddenly, the Sunnis became victims on the run, and not the ones fighting to recapture power. Sunni sectarian attacks provoked the Shi'a who turned to their most brazen militias—the ones who would not heed Sistani’s call for calm—and unleashed reprisals against Sunnis. It turned out that the insurgents could not keep their communities safe, and they began to cede more and more ground in the all-important turf war for Baghdad.

After tasting the bitter appetizer of what a Shi'a militia backlash would be like, I can bet that most Sunnis do not want to fight a civil war: they know that they will lose, and lose badly, and that comes through very clearly in the Guardian report.

All this added pressure and the resultant hardship of living outside the benevolence of the state, as well as the leadership vacuum that resulted from Saddam’s hanging, has opened up an opportunity for new, more moderate Sunni leaders to emerge. I discussed in a comment I posted here on December 6, 2006:


Let me answer this with a fresh piece of information from a top Ministry of Education official: “40 percent of schools in Baghdad are deserted. Almost all of them are in the Sunni bastions.”

The insurgents are denying Sunni children an education. The insurgents—as the Ansar al-Sunna leaflets that were distributed in Hai al-Jami’a and 14 Ramadhan Street over the last couple of days indicate—want to protect Sunnis from abduction at the hand of death squads. But death squads (and most government bodies including the police) wouldn’t dare enter into the side-streets of a place like Hai al-Jam’ia in the first place.

The insurgent agenda is to paralyze Iraq, but in effect they are only succeeding in paralyzing Sunni areas. Shops in Kadhimiya, Karrada and Sadr City stay open until late at night. Shops in mixed neighborhoods like Mansour close around 5 pm. Shops in Sunni bastions hardly open.

At one point, lay Sunnis are going to realize that they are being held behind by the same people who are claiming to defend them. This is an opportune movement for the elected Sunni leaders from Tawafuq and the rest to rise to the occasion: they will use their influence within the state to bring normalcy back to Sunni neighborhoods while at the same time keeping the death squads in check.



Saddam is to be out of the picture soon, and someone like Harith al-Dhari is already being deflated by the Iraqi government. The Sunnis are going to suffer from an acute leadership vacuum.

I think that these plans can win over the vast majority of Sunnis who are fed up with the heavy price they must pay, and who have begun to see that the insurgency is a dead-end. The Baker report tells them that America’s withdrawal is not imminent and that the Americans will try to improve their counterinsurgency skills, while other press reports suggest that the Americans may even turn against the Sunnis as a whole despite regional Arab support for them. All this adds up to a sense that the insurgency may not be going anywhere and that it is time to accept a new Iraq.

Al-Dulaimi, Hashemi and Mutlaq will continue railing against the issues that Sunnis dislike such as de-Ba’athification, arresting al-Dhari and the such, but they will facilitate the procedures I’ve been describing. Their own lives are physically threatened by the insurgents, and they have the most to gain from defeating the Ba’athists and jihadists and thus removing them from the Sunni leadership. I sense an opportunity coming up.

Moreover, the Iraqi middle class, those ‘refugees’ who took their savings and fled for the safety of Amman, Damascus, and Cairo, are returning to Baghdad as their money runs out and as the authorities in the host countries increase their harassment. Those returnees do not harbor any more escape fantasies: they are trapped in Iraq, their home and the locale of their livelihood, and they need to make a go of it. These pseudo-desperadoes will put up more of a fight when militias and insurgents try to impose their jungle law upon them; they will be the most loyal foot soldiers of a nascent state.

So yeah, I’ll say it loud and clear: enjoy the show; the bad guys are losing. This thing is winnable, and it is being won.

15 Comments:

Blogger Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي said...

'The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans'
As 20,000 more US troops head for Iraq, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, the only correspondent reporting regularly from behind the country's sectarian battle lines, reveals how the Sunni insurgency has changed
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad
Saturday January 13, 2007
Guardian
One morning a few weeks ago I sat in a car talking to Rami, a thick-necked former Republican Guard commando who now procures arms for his fellow Sunni insurgents.
Rami was explaining how the insurgency had changed since the first heady days after the US invasion. "I used to attack the Americans when that was the jihad. Now there is no jihad. Go around and see in Adhamiya [the notorious Sunni insurgent area] - all the commanders are sitting sipping coffee; it's only the young kids that are fighting now, and they are not fighting Americans any more, they are just killing Shia. There are kids carrying two guns each and they roam the streets looking for their prey. They will kill for anything, for a gun, for a car and all can be dressed up as jihad."
Rami was no longer involved in fighting, he said, but made a tidy profit selling weapons and ammunition to men in his north Baghdad neighbourhood. Until the last few months, the insurgency got by with weapons and ammunition looted from former Iraqi army depots. But now that Sunnis were besieged in their neighbourhoods and fighting daily clashes with the better-equipped Shia ministry of interior forces, they needed new sources of weapons and money.
He told me that one of his main suppliers had been an interpreter working for the US army in Baghdad. "He had a deal with an American officer. We bought brand new AKs and ammunition from them." He claimed the American officer, whom he had never met but he believed was a captain serving at Baghdad airport, had even helped to divert a truckload of weapons as soon as it was driven over the border from Jordan.
These days Rami gets most of his supplies from the new American-equipped Iraqi army. "We buy ammunition from officers in charge of warehouses, a small box of AK-47 bullets is $450 (£230). If the guy sells a thousand boxes he can become rich and leave the country." But as the security situation deteriorates, Rami finds it increasingly difficult to travel across Baghdad. "Now I have to pay a Shia taxi driver to bring the ammo to me. He gets $50 for each shipment."
The box of 700 bullets that Rami buys for $450 today would have cost between $150 and $175 a year ago. The price of a Kalashnikov has risen from $300 to $400 in the same period. The inflation in arms prices reflects Iraq's plunge toward civil war but, largely unnoticed by the outside world, the Sunni insurgency has also changed. The conflict into which 20,000 more American troops will be catapulted over the next few weeks is very different to the one their comrades experienced even a year ago.
In Baghdad in late October I called a Sunni insurgent I had known for more than a year. He was the mid-level commander of a small cell, active against the Americans in Sunni villages north of Baghdad. Sectarian frontlines had been hardening in the city for months - it took us 45 minutes of haggling to agree on a meeting place which we could both get to safely. We met in a rundown workers' cafe.
Kidnapped
"Its not a good time to be a Sunni in Baghdad," Abu Omar told me in a low voice. He had been on the Americans' wanted list for three years but I had never seen him so anxious; he had trimmed his beard in the close-cropped Shia style and kept looking towards the door. His brother had been kidnapped a few days before, he told me, and he believed he was next on a Shia militia's list. He had fled his home in the north of the city and was staying with relatives in a Sunni stronghold in west Baghdad.
He was more despondent than angry. "We Sunni are to blame," he said. "In my area some ignorant al-Qaida guys have been kidnapping poor Shia farmers, killing them and throwing their bodies in the river. I told them: 'This is not jihad. You can't kill all the Shia! This is wrong! The Shia militias are like rabid dogs - why provoke them?' "
Then he said: "I am trying to talk to the Americans. I want to give them assurances that no one will attack them in our area if they stop the Shia militias from coming."
This man who had spent the last three years fighting the Americans was now willing to talk to them, not because he wanted to make peace but because he saw the Americans as the lesser of two evils. He was wrestling with the same dilemma as many Sunni insurgent leaders, beginning to doubt the wisdom of their alliance with al-Qaida extremists.
Another insurgent commander told me: "At the beginning al-Qaida had the money and the organisation, and we had nothing." But this alliance soon dragged the insurgents and then the whole Sunni community into confrontation with the Shia militias as al-Qaida and other extremists massacred thousands of Shia civilians. Insurgent commanders such as Abu Omar soon found themselves outnumbered and outgunned, fighting organised militias backed by the Shia-dominated security forces.
A week after our conversation, Abu Omar invited me to a meeting with insurgent commanders. I was asked to wait in the reception room of a certain Sunni political party. A taxi driver took me to a house in a Sunni neighbourhood that had recently been abandoned by a Shia family. The driver came in with me - he was also a commander.
The house had been abandoned in a hurry, cardboard boxes were stacked by the door, some of the furniture was covered with white cloths and a few cheap paintings were piled against a wall. The property had been expropriated by the local Sunni mujahideen and we sat on sofas in a dusty reception room.
Abu Omar had been meeting commanders of groups with names like the Fury Brigade, the Battalions of the 1920 Revolution, the Islamic Army and the Mujahideen Army, to discuss options they had for fighting both an insurgency against the Americans and an escalating civil war with the Shia.
Abu Omar had proposed encouraging young Sunni men to enlist in the army and the police to redress the sectarian balance. He suggested giving the Americans a ceasefire, in an attempt to stop ministry of interior commandos' raids on his area. Al-Qaida had said no to all these measures; now he wanted other Iraqi insurgent commanders to support him.
'Do politics'
A heated discussion was raging. One of the men, with a very thin moustache, a huge belly and a red kuffiya wrapped around his shoulder, held a copy of the Qur'an in one hand and a mobile phone in the other. I asked him what his objectives were. "We are fighting to liberate our country from the occupations of the Americans and their Iranian-Shia stooges."
"My brother, I disagree," said Abu Omar. "Look, the Americans are trying to talk to us Sunnis and we need to show them that we can do politics. We need to use the Americans to fight the Shia."
He looked nervously at them: suggestions of talking to the Americans could easily have him labelled as traitor. "Where is the jihad and the mujahideen?" he continued. "Baghdad has become a Shia town. Our brothers are being slaughtered every day! Where are these al-Qaida heroes? One neighbourhood after another will be lost if we don't work on a strategy."
The taxi driver commander, who sat cross-legged on a sofa, joined in: "If the Americans leave we will be slaughtered." A big-bellied man waved his hands dismissively: "We will massacre the Shia and show them who are the Sunnis! They couldn't have done anything without the Americans' support."
When the meeting was over the taxi driver went out to check the road, then the rest followed. "Don't look up, we could be monitored, Shia spies are everywhere," said the big man. The next day the taxi driver was arrested.
By December Abu Omar's worst fears were being realised. The Sunnis had become squeezed into a corner fighting two sides at the same time. But by then he had disappeared; his body was never found.
Baghdad was now divided: frontlines partitioned neighbourhoods into Shia and Sunni, thousands of families had been forced out of their homes. After each large-scale bomb attack on Shia civilians, scores of mutilated bodies of Sunnis were found in the streets. Patrolling militias and checkpoints meant that men with Sunni names dared not venture far outside their neighbourhoods, while certain Sunni areas came under the complete control of insurgent groups the Shura Council of the Mujahideen and the Islamic Army. The Sunni vigilante self-defence groups took shape as reserve units under the control of these insurgent groups.
Like Abu Omar before him, Abu Aisha, a mid-level Sunni commander, had come to understand that the threat from the Shia was perhaps greater than his need to fight the occupying Americans. Abu Aisha fought in Baghdad's western Sunni suburbs, he was a former NCO in the Iraqi army and followed an extreme form of Islam known as Salafism.
Jamming
Deep lines criss-crossed his narrow forehead and his eyes half closed when he tried to answer a question He seemed to evaluate every answer before he spoke. He claimed involvement in dozens of attacks on US and Iraqi troops, mostly IEDs (bombs) but also ambushes and execution of alleged Shia spies. "We have stopped using remote controls to detonate IEDs," he volunteered halfway through our conversation. "Only wires work now because the Americans are jamming the signals."
On his mobile phone he proudly showed me grainy images of dead bodies lying in the street, their hands tied behind their backs . He claimed they were Shia agents and that he had killed them. "There is a new jihad now," he said, echoing Abu Omar's warning. "The jihad now is against the Shia, not the Americans."
In Ramadi there was still jihad against the Americans because there were no Shia to fight, but in Baghdad his group only attacked the Americans if they were with Shia army forces or were coming to arrest someone.
"We have been deceived by the jihadi Arabs," he admitted, in reference to al-Qaida and foreign fighters. "They had an international agenda and we implemented it. But now all the leadership of the jihad in Iraq are Iraqis."
Abu Aisha went on to describe how the Sunnis were reorganising. After Sunni families had been expelled from mixed areas throughout Baghdad, his area in the western suburbs was prepared to defend itself against any militia attack.
"Ameriya, Jihad, Ghazaliyah," he listed, "all these areas are becoming part of the new Islamic state of Iraq, each with an emir in charge." Increasingly the Iraqi insurgency is moving away from its cellular structure and becoming organised according to neighbourhood. Local defence committees have intertwined into the insurgent movement.
"Each group is in charge of a specific street," Abu Aisha said. "We have defence lines, trenches and booby traps. When the Americans arrive we let them go through, but if they show up with Iraqi troops, then it's a fight."
A few days later Rami was telling me about the Sunni insurgents in his north Baghdad area. A network of barricades and small berms blocked the streets around the car in which we sat talking. A convoy of two cars with four men inside whizzed past. "Ah, they are brothers on a mission," Rami said.
Like every man of fighting age, Rami was required to take part in his local vigilante group, guarding the neighbourhood at night or conducting raids or mortar attacks on neighbouring Shia areas.
But he paid $30 a week to a local commander and was exempted.
According to Rami and other commanders, funding for the insurgents comes from three sources. Each family in the street pays a levy, around $8, to the local group. "And when they go through lots of ammunition because of clashes," Rami said, "they pay an extra $5." Then there are donations from rich Sunni businessmen, financiers and wealthier insurgent groups. A third source of funding was "ghaniama", loot which is rapidly becoming the main fuel of the sectarian war
'A business'
"Every time they arrest a Shia, we take their car, we sell it and use the money to fund the fighters, and jihad," said Abu Aisha. The mosque sheik or the local commander collects the money and it is distributed among the fighters; some get fixed salaries, others are paid by "operations", and the money left is used for ammunition.
"It has become a business, they give you money to kill Shia, we take their houses and sell their cars," said Rami. "The Shia are doing the same.
"Last week on the main highway in our area, they killed a Shia army officer. He had a brand new Toyota sedan. The idiots burned the car. I offered them $40,000 for it, they said no. Imagine how many jihads they could have done with 40k."
• Names have been changed in this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

4:08 PM, January 14, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Kazimi,

Everywhere in the yet to be written history books, there is the name "Nibras Kazimi" written all over the place, you will one day lead Iraq. Nobody can make sense of the new Iraq like you, I just hope that you don't settle for writing.

Sincerely,

Abe

9:21 AM, January 16, 2007

 
Anonymous lester said...

and if you're wrong what? you'll stop writing this horrible blog? you'll go back to iraq where you belong? of course not. you were wrong before, you're wrong now and you'll be wrong again. how do you sleep at night?

"my pal bush"?

4:06 PM, January 16, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah but what if he is right? lester nobody is forcing you to read this blog. if you want to read that bush is evil and that iraq is a mess go read every rag and blog elsewhere.

nibras plz get as much sleep and rest so that you will write more of these excellent writings.

8:03 PM, January 16, 2007

 
Anonymous lester said...

anonymous- if he is right it would definately change the way I look at the world. because from what I can deduce the insurgency is not in it's last throes. I want to read about the reality of iraq. that is not what is being presented at this blog. of course if you take an event, like when bus hand maliki met in jordan, and interpret it a way no one else does, kazimi said that maliki was actually snubbing JORDAN, you will look like an intersting person. but maliki wasn't snubbing jordan. haniyeh didn't refuse to pray with the shias. and the stuff he picks off blogs and presents as facts are equally misleading. the guy is a con artist employed by a con artist think tank. He should be in jail. instead he cleans ahmed chalabis pool and learns little spanish phrases so he can talk to the other pool boys.

9:50 AM, January 17, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Staying the course actually brought forth dividends: all the vectors for an eventual victory look good [sic]”

Perfectly shaped “vectors” indeed!

I like the pseudo-scientific mathematical metaphor, with a zest of economic verbiage- I mean “dividends”!… WTF?

As they say in French: at least reading this isn’t as bad as being blind.

7:37 AM, January 18, 2007

 
Anonymous GAWAD said...

MoLester,

Those who understand the recent history and politics of the region find it quite believable that Maliki snubbed Jordan's King Abdullah. I believe it. Whether or not your simple mind can grasp it is a bit irrelevant.

And I don't think you know the first thing about Iraqi-Jordanian history. As for Haniyeh, I don't know. I do know that both Haniyeh and the Iranian regime are terrorist in nature. Both should pray together to Satan and then at least they would be honest.

By the way, is Nibras a con artist or a pool cleaner? Which one is it, Mo?

P.S. Jordan sucks.

3:43 PM, January 18, 2007

 
Anonymous lester said...

gawad- so when maliki talking to the british press yesterday about Condoleeza Rice and saying that he didnt want american troops, just armements and dollars, was it a snub at king hussein as well?

and what does it matter if you and mr kazimi have a conspiracy theory about the meeting in Jordan. the right and left wing press interpretted it as a response to the hadley memo, among other things. so the damage was done.

and kazimi is both a con artist and a faux puerto rican pool boy to chalabi and other arms smuggling terrorists. whichever one gives him nice pretty earrings and other baubles

1:51 PM, January 19, 2007

 
Anonymous lester said...

also, about a thousand iraqi civilians have died since he wrote this, his most recent "hope is just around the corner" carrot on a stick.

3:22 PM, January 19, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lester:-

you have an unhealthy obsession with puerto rican pool boys. you are ignorant. you make your argument look ridiculuos.

6:53 PM, January 19, 2007

 
Anonymous lester said...

good. ixophnir

10:05 AM, January 20, 2007

 
Anonymous ahmed said...

I dont think Chalabi has a pool.

4:12 PM, January 20, 2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The war in Iraq is no longer a war between random fighters against Americans. Whether USA withdraws or stays, it will not be as relevant as it used to be 2 years ago. It is now between Sunnis and Shia Iraqis, not because of their sentimental hate for each other (which doesnt exist among Iraqis), but it is fighting against one another for the cause of politics in order to win leadership.

To have a group of citizens win over another group of citizens is to have the alliance and support from its neighbors alike them like Shia and Sunni Iraqis are doing (Shia Iraqi supported by Iran, Lebanon, Sunni support by Syria, Jordan, Saudi etc) through funding, protection, free tickets for crossing borders.

2:06 AM, January 21, 2007

 
Anonymous GAWAD said...

MoLester,

You make no sense... but I will hand it to you, at least you are consistent in your nonsense.

I don't care how the "right and left wing press" interprets events in Iraq. If you knew a thing about Iraq you would see that the mainstream media does not know terribly much. The New York Times made up statements from Saddam that never appeared in his execution video. Should I believe that over the reality of what was said during the three and a half minute video?

Can you please prove to us that Nibras is a pool boy, whatever that means? Does Chalabi even swim? And how did Puerto Ricans get involved here?

You really cannot play the role of teacher here, Mo.

Deer balak 3ala nafsak. :)

4:48 PM, January 21, 2007

 
Blogger Dsquared said...

While the others nvbghaga hold small Oakley Frogskins are safer, for they are not so easy to fall over. However, the fact is Oakley Frogskin that the sizes of Cheap Oakley Sunglasses frame should be determined by each specific condition, because the pupil of both Oakley Jawbone should be kept in line with the optical center, so that their vision can be corrected to the most extent. Vision Oakley Jawbones of too big frame would lead to blur vision, dizziness and eye ache, while Oakley sunglasses of too small frame would affect the normal development of facial forms.

1:26 AM, August 10, 2011

 

Post a Comment

<< Home