• Former Gitmo detainee about to take Baghdad – UPDATE

    Certain people, and I’m naming no names – because if you read this blog at all, you’ll get it – have been terribly upset at how mean ol’ Gitmo is.

    Certain people have been clamouring for it to be shut down and the inmates to be released.

    Certain people have been upset that the Obama administration has only let some of them go.

    Well, one of the people they did let go has formed an Al Qaeda splinter cell so virulent that even Zawahiri has denounced it, and has raised a ten thousand strong army that is marching through the Sunni areas of Baghdad, leaving piles of severed heads in their wake.

    Do you think that certain people, including the insufferable Glenn Greenwald, are going to think that their view of Gitmo may have been a teensy-weensy bit simplistic?

    Of course they bloody won’t.  It’s not their heads that are being piled up along the streets of Iraq.

    For the record, chaps like Al Baghdadi should never have been taken prisoner – they should have been shot.  Before someone starts yelling about the laws of war, the laws of war do not apply to those who fight out of uniform and use civilians as shields.  Read this and then get back to me.  And if the Bush admin had had the sense not to take this lot prisoner in the first place, we wouldn’t have this problem right now.

    UPDATE:  A preview of life under Al Qaeda:


    • Women are told they should not go outside unless necessary, because their place is to provide stability at home.
    • They must wear full, wide Islamic dress
    • Stealing or looting will result in the amputation of limbs
    • Criminals can be crucified (this law quotes a verse from the Quran)
    • Muslims must participate in group prayers at mosques ‘on time’
    • Muslims will be well-treated, unless they are allied with oppressors
    • Drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are banned
    • Rival political or armed groups are also banned
    • Police and military officers will be given the chance to repent
    • Apostasy is punishable by death and carrying flags, except those of the Islamic state, is not allowed
    • Graves and shrines are forbidden, and will be destroyed

    Hmmm.  I keep being told that the jihadis only have political grievances and if we leave ’em alone and make nice, they’ll be nice.  And if there is one place where grievances against America should be purely political, isn’t it Iraq?

    So what’s all this then?  Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the jihadis mean what they say and their motive is religious?

    Category: Arab springIslamJihad

    Article by: The Prussian

    • kraut2

      Check out the incompetence of the president of Iraq, his alienating the Sunni population, the weaponing of Sunni tribes by the US, to paint a fuller picture.
      Oh yeah – do not forget who finances those thugs. Does the namke Saudi Arabia, oh so valuable ally of the west ring a bell?

      • ThePrussian

        Pushing at an open door with me when it comes to Saudi Arabia, though I’d call it an ally of the US gov’t.

        • kraut2

          The funny thing – that fact that SA and likely other gulf states are involved in financing those islamist fundamentalist gets hardly ever mentioned in the “official” news outlets.

          I guess it would be too disturbing for the US public especially what their so called friends are really up to.

          We now seem to have the situation that Iran is the closes ally to the Iraq Shia to help in this mess.


          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            That is what I have asked my readers-just pause for a second next time you are filling the gas tank and ask yourself who you’re giving money to. If not SA and Qatar, then non Islamic corrupt dictatorships like Russia.

          • ThePrussian

            It is a very, very depressing thing, you’re quite right there. And people wonder why I drink.

            Excellent article posts. Keep ’em coming!

    • guerillasurgeon

      Let me see, invasion – sponsoring of corrupt regime – pouring of money into army with little result – marginalising of Sunni Muslims – and there’s a rebellion. It doesn’t matter who it was led by, someone would have done it. As seen in Vietnam.

      • ThePrussian

        Yes, that clearly explains why they want to kill apostates, prevent women from going out alone and crucify people they don’t like, and also that the bulk of the members of ISIS are not from Iraq but from countries as far distant as Germany and Britain.

        • guerillasurgeon

          They wouldn’t be getting any support if it wasn’t for the gross injustices perpetrated by the government. Everyone hates them. They’re barmy as a box full of badgers, but they promised to help Sunni Muslims against a corrupt Shia government. As I said, if it wasn’t them it would be somebody else. That’s the only point I was making. As usual, you respond to only mild criticism by a complete overreaction.

          • ThePrussian

            Sure they wouldn’t. That’s why there was no support for the genocides of the Sudan or the one of East Timorese Christians. That’s why so many people in Egypt are totally cool with apostasy. That’s why you can find mosque after mosque in Europe that’s _down_ with women’s rights and is offering help to stop grooming and gang-rape by Muslim gangs.

            • guerillasurgeon

              They provide electricity, food for the poor, a limited form of education, even for girls. They repair the roads, and distribute other forms of charity. Something that the central government didn’t do. Which is why people are willing to be neutral if not enthusiastic supporters. Because they’ve been largely living without these things now since the deposing of Saddam. Your comments are growing incoherent sorry I cannot make any sense of your last one at all. This is obviously a very emotional subject for you.

            • ThePrussian

              What I am pointing out is that the chappies do all sorts of horrible things that are Islamic, and they do so because they believe in Islam, something you carefully dodge away from, trying to find some way of making it the fault of something, anything other than what it is.

            • guerillasurgeon

              Of course they’re doing it because they’re Islamic. They’re fucking mad, just like any other fundamentalist from any other religion. They are no different from the Christian nut jobs to go around bombing abortion clinics, or trying to end access to birth control, or for that matter the Hindus who massacre Muslims in India.

              But the point I’m making the point you have consistently missed, is that without the corruption, and the rest of the political bullshit that goes on in that country they would get absolutely zero support. Because people on the whole don’t like fundamentalists that much – particularly very strict ones who try to impose their views on everyone else. But what they do want is stability, a certain amount of prosperity, and a fair suck of the sav. So they are willing to put up with them to some extent if they offer this.

              Islam like any other religion, is not inherently evil as you seem to believe. People don’t convert to Islam and then start randomly killing people in the name of the Caliphate. This is why I sometimes wonder how much of life you’ve actually seen. Everything seems black and white to you, and life very rarely is. It’s just like your attitude towards Islamic anti-Semitism. There might be some historical background to it, but it’s not the only reason. Incidentally come to think of it – if it is the ‘only’ reason, why does Islamic anti-Semitism decrease the further you get away from the Middle East?

            • kraut2


              As to the rest of your post – Nothing but opinions based on little evidence. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have one goal – th play against Iran and its influence, destroying any reconciliation between sunnis and shia, it is nothing but a power play to win influence from the arab peninsula to Pakistan and provinces under muslim influence in China – where their influence successfully created another failed state, and will do so again in Afghanistan as well.
              It is a power play based on the Quran, who does not recognize the existence of secular government and is antithetical to democracy.

              Luckily Putin showed how to win against them in Chechnya. And he saved Obamas arse by digging him out of the hole proposing the destruction of chemical weapons.
              As to Syria: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-how-does-tony-blair-get-away-with-his-lies-9538846.html

            • guerillasurgeon

              Oh God – I think I’ll just leave you three to enjoy your blogs together. No one else seems to comment on them, I guarantee very few people read them. Particularly if you are blocked for holding a contrary opinion. You can just reinforce your own prejudices to your heart’s content.

      • NoCrossNoCrescent

        You actually have a point, maybe people in that part of the world were better off under the genocidal dictator Saddam. Because they simply weren’t ready to live together in peace. Hundreds of years of mutual religious hatred wouldn’t disappear overnight-certainly not with neighboring theocracies in Iran and Saudi Arabia pouring in their petrodollars to further foment it. It is about divisions caused by diverging interpretation of ancient texts-has always been about those, and will always be.

        • guerillasurgeon

          I have a point? Well that is progress. I even agree with much of what you say. I have other points too, but you banned me from your blog :-). Great advertisement for libertarian freedom of speech right?

          • NoCrossNoCrescent

            Ah, hurt feelings. Historical distortions, ad hominems, and insisting none of it is bad logic-and failing to stop after you are warned, and now whining about no longer being welcome. FYI, this has nothing to do with freedom of expression. You can display your ignorance of the Koran and Islamic tradition by claiming there was no Islamic antisemitism before the creation of Israel and accuse those who have a clue about history of “rigidity” anywhere you want, just not at the one place where I write. As in, say, if I come to your home and call you what you called me, you’ll ask me to leave. However, I’ll respect your wishes. I’ll never acknowledge you have a point again even if you do. Avoiding each other will make us both happier.

    • Beaker

      Sorry, but Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was never a detained at Guantanamo, he was detained at Camp Bucca in Iraq. According to the article he was among one of the thousands who were granted amnesty when the US started to pull out of Iraq. Is that what you are advocating here, to hold thousands of people captive indefinitely without trial, many possibly innocent? That’s easy for you to say, isn’t it? It’s not you who is locked up indefinitey under dehumanizing conditions for being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

      According to the article as well, some sources indicate that he radicalized while detained at camp Bucca. This is one of the arguments made by people, like me, who think Gitmo should be scrapped. When you treat people unethically by holding them indefinitely without trial or recourse, you are going to increase the hostility against you, not decrease it. You want to hold these people captive? Try them in military or civilian courts and lock them up. You don’t have the evidence to do so? On what basis are you holding them then?

      You pretend is just a simple “oh, we’ll just lock the jihadis away and then we’re done”. It’s not. It’s a complicated situation where the US invaded a country for no reason, locked people up who may or may not already have been radicalized under the Saddam regime, and way too often, if not routinely, ignored the human rights it pretends to defend. In it’s wake providing a breeding ground for muslim radical terrorist groups that might never have gained the power they have now if it weren’t for US interventions in the first place.