January 17, 2007
Al Qaeda terrorists are fleeing Baghdad in advance of President Bush’s 21,500-man troop surge, a senior military intelligence officer told Pajamas Media today. Under orders from the al Qaeda commander in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, fighters are streaming toward the Diyala region of Iraq....Iraq the Model has the same news, from Iraqi sources here. America's imminent defeat at the hands of Bushitlermchaliburton and neo-con Zionist cabal.......The apparent evacuation of Baghdad by al Qaeda forces comes from direct orders issued by al-Masri, the former soldier who took control of the Iraqi wing of al Qaeda following the June 2006 bombing death of Zarqawi.
Initially, the intelligence officer informed Pajamas, the Baghdad-based AQ fighters did not want to leave. Al-Masri had to send unequivocal orders for their retreat, adding that one of the lessons from the Fallujah campaign was that Americans have learned how to prevail in house-to-house fighting. Masri said that remaining in Baghdad was a ‘no-win situation’ for the terrorists.
“In more than ten years of reading al Qaeda intercepts, I’ve never seen language like this,†the intelligence officer said. Usually, al Qaeda communications are full of bravado and false confidence, he added.
Of course, not losing to al Qaeda (or other Salafis), Baathists, and Khomeinists is not the same as winning the war. As Bryan and Michelle have recently reminded us, to win means something more. But I'll take not losing over immediate withdrawal--which is how al Qaeda defines defeat for us--any day.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:21 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Darth Odie at January 17, 2007 05:44 PM (2cR/Y)
The only thing that would make this sweeter is if the coalition and the Iraqi Police and Army cut off the enemy's lines of retreat and pulverize them.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at January 17, 2007 05:49 PM (vixLB)
Where are their empty bombasts now?! Heh heh heh heh heh heh
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at January 17, 2007 05:50 PM (vixLB)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 17, 2007 07:01 PM (abVz3)
Posted by: greyrooster at January 17, 2007 07:31 PM (w+w6p)
Because liberals don't want us to win "Bush's war on terror." They are concerned with Walmart and christian "fundies" here at home than with international terrorism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2007 07:53 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2007 07:55 PM (6zYAC)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at January 17, 2007 09:18 PM (CtVG6)
I don't know. This does look like a major shift. Namely, having the Coalition go door to door killing terrorists, after which the iraqis will continue to do it when necessary.
The punks in Fallujah are no longer a problem. I think "Sadr City" and the other problem areas are going to take it in the neck.
The larger war on the islamopithecines will be taken care of after X amount of american city centers are destroyed by terrorists. I don't know what the sum of X is, but I'm betting it's at least three, given the present power of the left. After real Americans finally lose patience, mecca and medina will be nuked of of maps, along with the other problem areas.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 17, 2007 09:22 PM (abVz3)
Now if someone could tell those dummocrats that going on the offensive does mean an escalation, but if you keep hitting the enemy, eventually he'll figure out he's losing. Instead they want a slow withdrawal..
Yes why are the AC-130s not being sent after the scum, time and time again history has shown us if you let the enemy escape, he'll only come back stronger.
Posted by: MK at January 17, 2007 10:20 PM (pVHqF)
Posted by: greyrooster at January 18, 2007 12:06 AM (w+w6p)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 03:37 PM (abVz3)
34 queries taking 0.0391 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
