Insurgents form political front to plan for US pullout

Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.

Speaking in Damascus, the spokesmen for the three groups - the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Ansar al-Sunna and Iraqi Hamas - said they planned to hold a congress to launch a united front and appealed to Arab governments, other governments and the UN to help them establish a permanent political presence outside Iraq.

Abu Ahmad, spokesman for Iraqi Hamas said: "Peaceful resistance will not end the occupation. The US made clear it intended to stay for many decades. Now it is a common view in the resistance that they will start to withdraw within a year. "

Leaders of the three groups, who did not use their real names in the interview, said the new front, which brings together the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba'athists, had agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from foreign troops, rejection of cooperation with parties involved in political institutions set up under the occupation and a declaration that decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.

In their first interview with the western media since the US-British invasion of 2003, leaders of three of the insurgent groups - responsible for thousands of attacks against US and Iraqi armed forces and police - said they would continue their armed resistance until all foreign troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and denounced al-Qaida for sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians.
Speaking in Damascus, the spokesmen for the three groups - the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Ansar al-Sunna and Iraqi Hamas - said they planned to hold a congress to launch a united front and appealed to Arab governments, other governments and the UN to help them establish a permanent political presence outside Iraq.

Ansar al Sunnah's denouncing al Qaeda? For sectarian killings, no less?

Does anyone think they are sincere? From another article:

Iraq says it has captured a leader of insurgent group, Ansar al-Sunna, along with two of his aides. The arrest of Muntasir al-Jibouri was made in the town of Muqdadiya, about 80 km (50 miles) northeast of Baghdad, in the troubled province of Diyala.
Ansar al-Sunna is one of the largest militant groups in Iraq, and is close allies with al Qaeda. They have claimed responsibility for numerous suicide attacks including car bombings as well as beheadings of Shi'ite and Kurdish hostages....---- "Iraqi insurgent leader arrested,"
Reuters ^ | Sept 23, 2006

They flip flop like John Kerry. I particularly liked this part:

they planned to hold a congress to launch a united front and appealed to Arab governments, other governments and the UN to help them establish a permanent political presence outside Iraq.

They learn quickly from our liberal ACLU type rock-throwers... create "political" fronts for your terrorist group and use the democratic systems of your enemies as a shelter for recruitment, lobbying, fundraising and so forth. It's more effective than real warfare - at least in those vulnerable societies where people blindly insist that the political wing of a terrorist group should be treated differently than the militant wing. Set up NGOs at the UN and so on...

These bloodthirsty murderers can pretend to all agree now, but should the US leave before they are suppressed, you can bet that they will not hesitate to turn on each other to establish which group gains control. This is just a quaint native custom, and results in a strong dictator being head sheik. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Let the torture and rape rooms resume!

Meanwhile, the Dems want to “redeploy” our troops from preventing this predictable genocide to slowing down the genocide in Darfur.

>>
If you’re a liberal, you learn to draw fine distinctions over mass murder.
<<

Yet another illustration of why liberals embrace “nuance” when justifying one approach over another. It allows them to, for example, decry US treatment of Native Americans, Japanese citizens during WW II, etc. but allows that the US has no moral responsibility in the deaths of tens of thousands of Vietnamese died after the US pullout, while at the same time it is “Bush’s fault” that we are not, at this instant, preventing the slaughter of innocents in Darfur.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.