Top al-Qaida leaders killed in Iraq

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 12:49 AM GMT
    [url]http://portal.tds.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&rip_id=%3CD9F6CHV00%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS[/url]

    This is a big victory. But I'm sure others will take their place and the war will go on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 1:24 AM GMT
    Good riddance. I heard they kill themselves
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 1:30 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWeren't we supposed to be out of Iraq by now?
    Not according to neo-con Republicans, who think we should be there indefinitely, continuing our successful Bush policy of spreading Democracy throughout the Middle East. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Apr 20, 2010 1:34 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWeren't we supposed to be out of Iraq by now?



    Of course there are many that would say... "What the hell were we doing there in the first place"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 1:38 AM GMT

    Big deal. More vicious thugs will take their place. In the end our troops will leave. Then Iran will claim most of Iraq as its prize - either with or without a bloodbath.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Apr 20, 2010 1:59 AM GMT
    Can someone remind me why we are in that fiasco to begin with?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 2:15 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Seems like the Bush timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is still in place for some strange reason. icon_confused.gif


    You mean the time table put in place only once it because obvious Democrats could regain power?
  • Delivis

    Posts: 2332

    Apr 20, 2010 3:29 AM GMT
    /cheer
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 4:01 AM GMT
    flieslikeabeagle> Big deal. More vicious thugs will take their place.

    It is a big deal because there are reasons these guys were #1 and #2.
    Can you imagine if New England lost Tom Brady and Brian Hoyer...?

    There may now be an internal power struggle for leadership, or possibly a schism - both of which weaken the organization for some time to come. Even absent that, there will be a transition period as the new leaders take their place, learn the ropes and gain the confidence of their followers.

    This is good news for the US and better news for Iraq.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 4:26 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    southbeach1500 saidWeren't we supposed to be out of Iraq by now?
    Not according to neo-con Republicans, who think we should be there indefinitely, continuing our successful Bush policy of spreading Democracy throughout the Middle East. icon_rolleyes.gif



    LOL


    And referencing democracy in the middle east, as the old proverb says 'be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it'. See Hamas in Palestine, see Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan (although that might be stretching the definition of democracy), see the rise of Islamic fundamentalist parties in Kuwait, Bahrain and other quasi-elected governments in the region.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 5:28 AM GMT
    Southbeach -
    AGAIN, you get the facts wrong.
    Obama didn't promise to bring the troops home "sooner rather than later".
    You just made that shit up.
    What Obama promised was that he'd end the war, and get out of Iraq carefully and responsibly - unlike the careless and irresponsible way the war was started - and waged - by Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 9:18 AM GMT
    The only victory this is, is a propaganda victory.

    Let's get the people back on for the war effort!

    Never mind that Iraq is back in shambles.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/iraq/article/791349--iraq-bombings-sparks-fears-of-civil-war

    Al-Qaeda is Iraq is an odd thing.

    It's amazing how this war has been all smoke and mirrors, and very little truth; much like all war, but this one has been so popularized.

    The Washington Post reported on how Iraqi PM and American puppet, al-maliki revealed "Masri's and Baghdadi's deaths during a televised news conference", and further:

    "Maliki's government has in the past falsely reported the death and the capture of Baghdadi, most recently last spring. It never retracted the claim."

    "Monday's announcement appeared to put to rest the debate over whether Baghdadi was a fictional character, a real person or a composite. U.S. intelligence officials said in 2007 that they thought Baghdadi was a fictional figure created by non-Iraqi leaders to bolster the standing of the foreign-led extremist organization in a deeply nationalistic country. They later speculated that several leaders used the nom de guerre."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041901693.html

    And in fact, one year ago, on April 24, 2009, the Times carried the headline:

    Iraq Al-Qaeda boss Abu Omar al-Baghdadi 'is captured'

    It reported that this same mystery man was captured by Iraqi security forces.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6155579.ece

    This was then confirmed by the Prime Minister
    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/al_qaeda_leader_abu.php

    Two years prior to that, in March of 2007, the Iraqi government reported that they caught the same terrorist, and then had to retract their statement.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17539985/

    Within ONE week in March of 2007, Baghdadi was reported to be captured THREE times, and every time, it turned out to be false.
    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/03/the_abu_omar_albagda.php

    In May of 2007, Iraqi security forces announced that they had killed al-Baghdadi
    http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.main/

    In July of 2007, the US military said he was a "fictional character"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html?_r=1

    Al-Masri, the OTHER terrorist leader in Iraq who was killed, was actually killed in May of 2007, as the Iraqi government reported at the time.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269556,00.html

    Amazingly, one year later, in May of 2008, al-Masri rose from the dead in order to be captured by US and Iraqi security forces.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3897888.ece

    This is all very reminiscent of how in July of 2006, the US killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi, for the FINAL time.

    Like a good Hollywood bad guy, they always come back to life.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 9:18 AM GMT
    Al-Zarqawi was the previous boogeyman, and as the Washington Post reported in April of 2006:

    "The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program."

    "The documents state that the U.S. campaign aims to turn Iraqis against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, by playing on their perceived dislike of foreigners. U.S. authorities claim some success with that effort, noting that some tribal Iraqi insurgents have attacked Zarqawi loyalists."

    "For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign."


    Hey, that's YOU!

    "Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

    Remember al-Zarqawi? He was the guy that Bush et. al. said was the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda which turned out to be, naturally, a complete and utter LIE.

    In February of 2004, the New York Times ran a major story on a 17 page letter between Zarqawi and al-Qaeda's leadership, enlisting their help for the war in Iraq, to start a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shi'a. The global media took that story and ran with it, with US Generals backing the story up. The letter, as it turned out, was a fake. Zarqawi was the person whom Cheney, Rice and Powell and all the other war criminals cited as the "link" between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the link that NEVER existed. When Powell spoke before the UN, he said, "Iraq today harbours a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi."

    The military and intelligence agencies use the media to manipulate you. It's propaganda.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html

    Zarqawi was even killed in 2004
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084

    then he was arrested in 2005
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/04/content_405831.htm

    and killed for the last time in 2006
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800114.html




    As revealed in 2008, the Pentagon has been conducting a long-running propaganda campaign directed in the US media against YOU to present a favourable view of the war coverage. To do this, the Pentagon used retired officers "presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world."

    "Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance."

    "The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air."

    "Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

    So, in regards to the "news" about killing the "top guys" in Iraq. Well, one Iraqi put it best:

    "Al-Qaeda can replace their leaders, and terrorism and violence will not end in Iraq," he said. "The Iraqi citizens don't care about this news. We care about job opportunities and a new government forming soon that won't be as greedy."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041901693.html


    Let me know when al-Baghdadi is killed again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 10:07 AM GMT
    rickrick91 saidSouthbeach -
    AGAIN, you get the facts wrong.
    Obama didn't promise to bring the troops home "sooner rather than later".
    You just made that shit up.
    What Obama promised was that he'd end the war, and get out of Iraq carefully and responsibly - unlike the careless and irresponsible way the war was started - and waged - by Bush.


    You're both wrong.

    In July of 2007, Obama said that, "the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711

    In April of 2008, seven months before the election:

    "A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office."
    http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-adviser-calls-for-60000-80000-us-troops/74207/

    In September of 2007, Obama called "for a complete redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2009, starting immediately."

    In January 2007, Obama proposed the Iraq War De-Escalation Act, "which would have reversed the troop surge and redeployed U.S. troops to Afghanistan and other locations in phases."
    http://www.cfr.org/publication/14761/

    When campaigning, Obama said, "A residual US presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces and pursuit of international terrorists." This would "Cap troops at the number in Iraq on Jan. 10, 2007."
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/02/25/us/20070226obama_graphic.ready.html

    In July of 2004, "the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success."

    In March of 2008, he said, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/

    so, in short, Obama has been a political chameleon. In reality, his advisers determine the policy, and Obama signs them off. He isn't determining foreign policy, the war-hawks and imperialists in his administration are, with the heavy hand of the powerful think tanks and military-industrial complex behind them.

    In his farewell address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned Americans, and in fact, the world, about the "military-industrial complex" and its threat to democracy and the promotion of war.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 10:23 AM GMT
    Lawrence Wilkerson gives a speech on the military-industrial complex.

    Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.



    Part 2

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2010 10:51 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    But the neo-con Republicans haven't had control of Congress since January of 2007. And with a Democrat President since January of 2009, they certainly had every chance to live up to their campaign promises of bringing all the troops home sooner rather than later.

    Seems like the Bush timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is still in place for some strange reason. icon_confused.gif


    This is one thing on which I can kind of agree with you to some degree: Obama did promise things on which he then either couldn't or wouldn't deliver.

    And I have to admit to feeling, at least to some degree, that once Bush and Cheney and the Republicans got us into this stupid, irresponsible war (and, yes, the Democrats were complicit in it, as was the New York Times and the so-called liberal media), we couldn't just leave without trying to leave behind something that might work.

    Unfortunately, I fear that nothing we can do will actually make that happen.

    So, yeah, Obama was stuck having to clean up the shit left behind by Bush-Cheney, and there's really just no way to do it.

    And this is why I sometimes almost wish McCain had won. It would have been better if he had been the one unable to get us out of this in any graceful and effective way.

    Of course, once McCain was stupid enough to choose Palin as his running mate, well . . . I am awfully glad that he didn't win. But I have to admit that if he'd chosen someone reasonably competent and intelligent, I might not have minded too much if he'd won and he'd had to deal with cleaning up the Bush-Cheney mess. I'd never have voted for him, but I might not have overly minded his winning.