T Nation

Al-Qaida Leader Captured

The Bush administratons war on terror continues to make progress.

In this case, republicans and democrats alike can rejoice in the capture of this terrorist:

"Iraqi Forces Arrest No. 2 al-Qaida Leader in Iraq
By ELENA BECATOROS, AP

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Sept. 3) - Authorities on Sunday announced the capture of al-Qaida in Iraq’s No. 2 leader, who they blame for “brutal and merciless” terror operations, including the bombing of a Shiite shrine last winter that touched off months of sectarian bloodletting and pushed Iraq toward civil war.

Across the country, at least 20 Iraqis died in bomb attacks and shootings, and the U.S. military command said two U.S. soldiers and two Marines had been killed.

Tension also rose between Baghdad and the country’s Kurdish north, after the autonomous region’s president threatened secession and ordered the Iraqi national flag be replaced by the Kurdish one.

The arrest a few days ago of Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, has left al-Qaida in Iraq suffering a “serious leadership crisis,” national security adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said. “Our troops have dealt fatal and painful blows to this organization.”

Al-Saeedi supervised the creation of death squads and ordered assassinations, bombings, kidnappings and attacks on Iraqi police and army checkpoints, al-Rubaie said. “The operations were brutal and merciless.”

Al-Saeedi’s capture “will affect al-Qaida in Iraq and its operations against our people, especially those aimed at inciting sectarian strife,” al-Rubaie said.

Not much is known about al-Saeedi, but al-Rubaie said he was the second most important al-Qaida in Iraq leader after Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Al-Masri is believed to have taken over the group after a U.S. airstrike killed leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi north of Baghdad on June 7.

“This is a very important development,” said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

“Deliberate intelligence work, both by Iraqi forces as well as the multinational forces, have dealt a very severe blow to al-Qaida organization in Iraq,” Saleh said. “It is also significant because this man is believed to have been responsible for the attack on the shrines in Samarra, which led to the sectarian violence that we have seen.”

The February bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra, 95 kilometers (60 miles) north of Baghdad, inflamed tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and triggered reprisal attacks that have killed hundreds of Iraqis and continue to this day.

Al-Rubaie said al-Saeedi was “directly responsible” for Haitham Sabah Shaker Mohammed al-Badri, the person who carried out the bombing.

A senior coalition official told The Associated Press that coalition forces were involved in al-Saeedi’s arrest, but would not give details on what role they played.

Speaking on condition of anonymity because announcements were being made by Iraqi authorities, the official said al-Saeedi had been arrested along with three other people southwest of Baqouba, a city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. Al-Zarqawi was killed on the outskirts of Baqouba.

Al-Saeedi “claims to be responsible for more attacks than he can remember” and has been involved in the insurgency almost from its beginning three years ago, the official said.

Al-Rubaie said al-Saeedi gave information that led to the capture or death of 11 other top al-Qaida in Iraq figures and nine lower-level members. He said those arrested included non-Iraqi Arabs, but would not give any further information for security reasons.

The U.S.-led coalition has announced numerous arrests after al-Zarqawi was killed that officials claim have thrown al-Qaida in Iraq into disarray.

But rampant sectarian violence and other attacks have continued.

A bomb exploded at an accessories market in Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, on Sunday evening, killing four people and wounding 21, including at least one child, the province’s police said.

In Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, gunmen shot three policemen, killing two of them and wounding the third, while elsewhere in the city, a car bomb killed three people, police said.

Most Popular Stories

? Army Recommends Death for Accused GIs
? Dad Kills Sons, Himself at College Campus
? Europe’s First Lunar Mission Reaches Moon
? Intimate Confessions Pour Out on Church’s Web Site
? Mom Gets Photo of Son Missing Since 1982

The U.S. military command announced that four U.S. troops had been killed - two in a Baghdad explosion on Sunday and two in separate incidents in the volatile Anbar province, one Sunday and one Friday.

Tensions also brewed in the north, after the president of the Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani, threatened secession Sunday. On Friday, he had ordered the Iraqi flag to be replaced with the Kurdish one, sparking harsh words in Baghdad.

“If we want to separate, we will do it, without hesitation or fears,” he said during an address to the Kurdish parliament.

The Kurdish region gradually has been gaining more autonomy since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, and Sunni Arabs fear the Kurds are pushing for independence.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a terse statement saying only the national flag should be hoisted throughout the country.

“The current Iraqi flag is the only one which must be hoisted on each bit of Iraq’s land until a decision is adopted by the parliament according to the constitution,” the statement said.

In other violence across Iraq, according to police:

An overnight mortar attack east of Baghdad killed six people, including two children, and wounded 15.

A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol in eastern Baghdad killed two policemen and a civilian and wounded three policemen.

A civilian was gunned down and killed in a drive-by shooting in Amarah, 200 miles southeast of Baghdad.

In Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, a suicide car bomb targeting a police patrol killed two policemen and wounded five people.

Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana and Rawya Rageh in Baghdad, and Yahya Barzanji in Irbil contributed to this report."

09/03/06 12:54 EDT

This is really great news.

However, we both know that there are folks who would rather shove a hot poker up their ass than give any credit to the war on terror.

<cue jlesk, JTF, and 100m>

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This is really great news.

However, we both know that there are folks who would rather shove a hot poker up their ass than give any credit to the war on terror.

<cue jlesk, JTF, and 100m>[/quote]

I’m waiting for one of them to exclaim that by taking this asshole down, we just created ten more terrorists to take his place.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This is really great news.

However, we both know that there are folks who would rather shove a hot poker up their ass than give any credit to the war on terror.

<cue jlesk, JTF, and 100m>[/quote]
No, I think it’s great, but enraging that we even have to be wasting our time fighting the al qaeda our presence has brought there. It’s just unbelievable how bad their so called war on terror strategy has been. Just a total policy disaster.

Not to mention this will have no effect on events in Iraq anymore than killing the number 1 guy did. We’ve created a brand new terrorist’s Disneyland, at the cost of huge amounts of treasure and life and how many 10s of thousands horrific injuries.F–king wonderful.

I guess you don’t notice how us having to kill al qaeda in a country that didn’t have al qaeda is kind of a step(gigantic) backwards. Jeebus.

As for your moronic hot poker in the ass, you can keep it in your own, till you get as pissed as I am about 9/11, the Cole, etc., etc., and want to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING to those responsible and put a lid on terror—meanwhile sit with that poker and keep rah rahing your war that’s increased terror attacks how many fold, 400 percent since 9/11, How many new al qaeda recruits? 100’s, 1000’s? In how many countries? How well trained will they be?? Highly trained in explosives maybe? Tactics? Just how many horrible things do you want to happen to us, to our troops?

Or is michigan a risk free state for terror?

Note to Wingnuts:
Fighting a war on terror would ideally create less terror/ists.

No sensible person’s strategy in fighting a war on terror would be step one: create new afghanistan.

Of course its obvious that bigflamer hasn’t a clue about strategy, let alone terrorism…

By the way the result of capturing the last 20 #2’s. HORRIFIC BLOODSHED, and a new #2.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
This is really great news.

However, we both know that there are folks who would rather shove a hot poker up their ass than give any credit to the war on terror.

<cue jlesk, JTF, and 100m>

I’m waiting for one of them to exclaim that by taking this asshole down, we just created ten more terrorists to take his place.

[/quote]

Explain the results of killing Al-Zarquai. I swear you guys can’t remember s–t.
answer:MASSIVE BLOODSHED.

This is not to say these s–ts of the earth shouldn’t be erased from the earth, but damn what a waste to create the 1000’s he recruited.
By the way the person saying “10 more to take his place” will most likely be military or cia. You know reports like cia says Iraq new terrorist haven. Keyword new. Please stop supporting the creation of terrorists.

Fuck this cocksucker. I hope they hang him, and he dies slowly.

I want Bin Laden’s head, though. Number 1 is far more important than this guy.

Of course, at this point, any dead Al-Queda leader is a good one.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Explain the results of killing Al-Zarquai. I swear you guys can’t remember s–t.
answer:MASSIVE BLOODSHED.

[/quote]

Thanks, 100. You’re like Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park. :slight_smile:

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
This is really great news.

However, we both know that there are folks who would rather shove a hot poker up their ass than give any credit to the war on terror.

<cue jlesk, JTF, and 100m>

I’m waiting for one of them to exclaim that by taking this asshole down, we just created ten more terrorists to take his place.

[/quote]

Na, probably only one or two. The other 8 were shocked and awed when their family was ripped to pieces by an American bomb.

How many Falludjans do you think have joined the insurgents cause?

How many times now has Al-Qaeda’s number two been caught or killed now?

What’s so tough about getting number 1?

I swear, being Al-Qaeda’s number 2 has to be the worst job in the world. Talk about a promotion you don’t wanna get: “Hey, Mahmoud, great news! You’re our new number 2! Hey! Where are you going?! Come back here!”

[quote]100meters wrote:

Fighting a war on terror would ideally create less terror/ists.[/quote]

I think you have to look at this from an historical perspective.

I’m sure that “we created more Nazis” by fighting with Germany early on in the war. And I think we created just as many kamikazes by striking back at the Japanese as well.

But…

In the end there were less of them.

Also, you are looking at this all wrong. Instead of counting up how many more terrorists that there may be in the short term you need to look at how many terrorist attacks that there have been in the USA since 9-11.

I think taking the war (over there) to the terrorists has kept our country safe. Better to fight it in Iraq and Afghanistan than over here. Or, would you simply chalk it up to “luck?” No…no that would be foolish huh?

And, I think President Bush deserves some credit for this.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters wrote:

Fighting a war on terror would ideally create less terror/ists.

I think you have to look at this from an historical perspective.

I’m sure that “we created more Nazis” by fighting with Germany early on in the war. And I think we created just as many kamikazes by striking back at the Japanese as well.

But…

In the end there were less of them.

Also, you are looking at this all wrong. Instead of counting up how many more terrorists that there may be in the short term you need to look at how many terrorist attacks that there have been in the USA since 9-11.

I think taking the war (over there) to the terrorists has kept our country safe. Better to fight it in Iraq and Afghanistan than over here. Or, would you simply chalk it up to “luck?” No…no that would be foolish huh?

And, I think President Bush deserves some credit for this.

[/quote]

The war in Iraq will have nothing to do with saving us from other attacks, just like it hasn’t helped our allies. To prevent the attacks that Iraq will(has) inspire will require LAW ENFORCEMENT.

And when our “plan” comes to fruition in Iraq and the Iraqi military/police stand up and we stand down will there be less terrorists? Nope. It’s really nothing like WWII.

Isn’t this around the ninth guy we’ve captured who was Al Qaida’s “number two guy?”

That job’s more dangerous than playing keyboards or the Grateful Dead.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Isn’t this around the ninth guy we’ve captured who was Al Qaida’s “number two guy?”

That job’s more dangerous than playing keyboards or the Grateful Dead.[/quote]

I can just imagine the conversation at the super secret AL Qaida hideout. I can also imagine the number of scared terrorists shuffling their feet and looking straight at the floor hoping they don’t hear their name being called as a replacement.

I think the proportion of terrorists exposed by the war in Iraq to terrorists created by the war in Iraq is about 10:1.
These dipshits hated us and hated Israel long before we went into Iraq.

Now they are getting a chance to die for their cause. At least they are using their terrorists tactics against armed soldiers trained to fight them and other Muslims (who have the chance to rise up against them and remove them from Iraq) instead of innocent civilians working in office buildings here or drinking coffee in Israel.

[quote]doogie wrote:

These dipshits hated us and hated Israel long before we went into Iraq.[/quote]

Agreed, and how many recruits went unfazed by the invasion into Afghanistan but decided to join up after the invasion of Iraq?

I seriously doubt any Muslims sitting on the terrorist fence shrugged his shoulders because of Afghanistan but was outraged by Iraq enough to strap a bomb-vest on.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
doogie wrote:

These dipshits hated us and hated Israel long before we went into Iraq.

Agreed, and how many recruits went unfazed by the invasion into Afghanistan but decided to join up after the invasion of Iraq?

I seriously doubt any Muslims sitting on the terrorist fence shrugged his shoulders because of Afghanistan but was outraged by Iraq enough to strap a bomb-vest on.[/quote]

Kidding right?


Well hopefully that will help slow down the violence over there.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Kidding right?[/quote]

Nope.

[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
Well hopefully that will help slow down the violence over there.[/quote]

I want you to point out to in detail exactly how some “made billions” from the war. And how the war was begun for this to occur.

And don’t give me any of the usual imaginary left wing theories. I want some proof.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
TurboSSR wrote:
Well hopefully that will help slow down the violence over there.

I want you to point out to in detail exactly how some “made billions” from the war. And how the war was begun for this to occur.

And don’t give me any of the usual imaginary left wing theories. I want some proof.

[/quote]

Oh, no WMD?

Need to update your wingnuttery.

JeffR