18
Jul

al-Qaeda In Iraq? Say It Ain’t So!

Posted by: Curt @ 7:09 pm in The Iraqi War  | 0 views

Every day we find another reason why the Democrats silly and ignorant call to leave Iraq and go fight al-Qaeda elsewhere is foolhardy.  Todays news:

U.S. Special Operations Forces scored a major victory against al Qaeda in Iraq’s senior leadership and gained valuable insight on the al Qaeda creation known as the Islamic State of Iraq. On July 4, Coalition forces captured Khalid Abdul Fatah Da’ud Mahmud Al Mashadani, a senior al Qaeda in Iraq and Islamic State of Iraq leader and close associate of Abu Ayyub al Masri, al Qaeda’s commander. Mashadani, also known as Abu Shahed, was captured in Mosul and is thought by the U.S. military to be the most senior Iraqi-born leader in al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). During Mashadani’s interrogation, the U.S. confirmed the Islamic State of Iraq is an al Qaeda front and that its leader does not really exist.

[...]During interrogations, Mashadani admitted that the Islamic State of Iraq was merely a puppet front group established by al Qaeda in order to put an Iraqi face on the insurgency. Mashadani cofounded the Islamic State of Iraq with al-Masri in 2006. “The Islamic State of Iraq is a ‘front’ organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within AQI in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of AQI,” said Brig. Gen Bergner.

But not only is the Islamic State of Iraq a contrived entity, its leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is as well. “To further this myth [of the Islamic State of Iraq], al Masri created a fictional political head of ISI known as Omar al-Baghdadi,” said Brig. Gen Bergner. Al-Baghdadi is actually played by an actor named Abu Abdullah al Naima, and al Masri “maintains exclusive control over al Naima as he acts the part of the fictitious al-Baghdadi character.”

But of course we all know that it’s mostly Iraqi’s fighting us right?  al-Qaeda isn’t there.

More good news to report:

Abu Jurah, an al-Qaeda cell leader, died Saturday in the Arab Jabour area just south of the city after U.S. troops received word that he and 14 others were meeting at a house there, a U.S. statement said.

About an hour later, the 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment fired two Excalibur precision-guided shells at the house, destroying it. An unmanned aerial vehicle saw people leaving the rubble and loading the injured into a vehicle.

An AH-64 Apache helicopter attacked the vehicle and destroyed it, the statement said.

Three people were seen fleeing into a second house, which was destroyed by a U.S. Air Force F-16 jet that dropped two 500-pound guided bombs on it.

What!  Another al-Qaeda member inside Iraq? 

Still, lets pull our troops so we can fight al-Qaeda where they really are!

Sigh….

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pm and is filed under The Iraqi War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

4 comments so far

Scott Malensek
 1Reply to this comment  

Somewhere in my directory of weekly PDF files from the Multi National Forces weekly email updates is an MNF report that 3184 Al Queda have been confirmed killed in Iraq since the surge began. That was sometime in May or June.

Al Queda’s not in Iraq, yeah, right.

July 19th, 2007 at 5:13 am
skip742
 2Reply to this comment  

You talk as though you this is the way it’s always been. Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq until the invasion, so if there are a handful there now, its only because of the invasion. Which, arguably, would explain why criminal groups like al-Qaeda are much more successful in recruiting in Iraq than they would have been if we hadn’t been there.

I might add that it’s very easy to SAY that someone is “al-Qaeda” whether they are or not. The victor writes the history, as they say. We’ve come to call every cell leader “al-Qaeda” nowadays, whether they fit that description or not.

Yeah, there are “bad guys” in Iraq. There are also some in Syria, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in Azerbaijan, in Turkmenistan, in Kazakhstan, in Zimbabwe, in Venezuela, in Russia, in China, in Korea, in Pakistan, in India, in Turkey, in Somalia, in Bosnia, in Albania, in Italy, in Sweden, in South Africa, in Nigeria, in Liberia, in Mexico, and yes, in the United States. By your philosophy, we ought to invade each and every one of these places, and fight until we’ve put down “the opposition”. Do you not see the endless foolishness of this approach?

If you haven’t caught on yet, the approach you’re describing is a no-win war. Since we have no objective, except to put down “opposition”, and we have no limited scope – we’re willing to attack “terrorism” anywhere in the world – we have thrusted upon the American people an endless agenda of invasion after invasion, and intervention after intervention. In fact, this approach to the world would eventually be the end of our nation as a free people.

I never thought I’d support a socialistic Democrat, but apparently that’s the only way to end this insanity. And with the neocon’s adopting most aspects of Democratic economic policy, I’m not sure they’ll be that much worse anyway.

OK, if we’re lucky enough to nominate Ron Paul, I’ll be saved from the temptation to vote for a Dem, and anyway, they won’t need my vote. This nation isn’t voting for a pro-war candidate regardless.

Pull your head out of the sand.

August 14th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Scott Malensek
 3Reply to this comment  

There were hundreds of Al Queda in Iraq before the war as well as Al Queda affiliate groups, thousands and thousands of foreign fighters from all over (16,000 from Syria alone).

There are plenty of interviews with Al Queda guys who were captured in the invasion (yet another one just this week).

There are literally tens of thousands of first hand accounts from soldiers and (in particular) Marines who fought these “foreign fighter” terrorists during the invasion.

The list of Regime guys caught working with Al Queda is in the hundreds.

Even books from the people who were there (privates, NCOs, officers, and reporters) all describe the thousands of terrorists encountered in the invasion (understanding that the political talking point is the claim that they only went to Iraq to fight the US in a war is countered by the clear fact that Saddam, his regime, Al Queda, and all the terrorists there already claimed they were at war with the US long before the invasion).

Thunder Run by David Zucchino
(CLEARLY describes 5000-6000 Syrian mercenaries, foreign fighters, jihadis, and Islamofascists)
American Soldier by Gen Tommy Franks
(describes thousands to tens of thousands of foriegn fighter terrorists from all over the ME)
The March Up by Maj Gen Ray L Smith(describes “thousands” of foreign fighters/terrorists roughly in the neighborhood of 2000-4000 in the various training camps captured by the US Marines (some still occupied by US Marines)
War Stories by Oliver North
(describes “thousands” of foreign fighters/terrorists roughly in the neighborhood of 2000-4000 in the various training camps captured by the US Marines (some still occupied by US Marines)
Shadow War by Richard Miniter(describes “thousands” of foreign fighters/terrorists)
The Secret History of the Iraq War by Yosef Bodansky(describes “thousands” of foreign fighters/terrorists)
Under Fire by various Reuters reporters(describes “thousands” of foreign fighters/terrorists)
Embedded by various reporters(describes “thousands” of foreign fighters/terrorists)
and
Generation Kill by Evan Wright (describes “thousands” of foreign fighters/terrorists)

History is not always written by the victors-there was an era and a culture in which it was, but not in a modern democracy. In that latter setting, history is written by fact, and the facts presented are counter to the political rhetoric presented: Al Queda had hundreds of members in Iraq prior to the US invasion.

Yet another confirmation this week
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/08/12/yet-another-captured-alqaeda-m/

Ultimately, the political argument that “Al Queda was never in Iraq until the US invaded” is a fool’s errand for it ignores that “draining the swamp” was one of the listed reasons for invading Iraq; the idea that invading Iraq would draw terrorists to a battleground of our choosing against a force of our choosing rather than having to confront them exclusively in the Graveyard of Empires which…for some reason…just doesn’t seem like an idea with a lot of historical precedent for success.

August 14th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Scott Malensek
 4Reply to this comment  

Ya know, I COMPLETELY missed that last line, and I do apologize for that.

“This nation isn’t voting for a pro-war candidate regardless.”

Given that Sen Clinton, Sen Obama, and Sen Edwards have all pledged to keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq if elected, it seems America will in fact be voting for a pro-war candidate…it’s just that “pro-war” doesn’t mean rah rah rah woohoo let’s bomb em (as if it ever did). Instead it means that the leading Democrat and Republican candidates, the only candidates with real chances at the White House are pro-war in that they will continue it.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, whoever pretends they’re gonna just pull troops out and everything will be happy-go-lucky or better in any way…those people are just panderers, and the American people know it. That’s why:

support for the war is growing/re-surging
support for withdrawal is declining
approval of the Democrats’ Congress is lower than President Bush’s
approval of the Democrats’ Congress’ handling of the Iraq War is at a whopping 3%!

Nope. Despite what the leftist politicos will say, no one “wants” this war, no one “wanted” it, and it didn’t start by American imperialist warmongering capitalist pigs (gee, no socialist theme there). No. This war’s been necessary since the start, and has become even more necessary since the fall of Saddam.

One way or the other, Democrat or Republican, there are simply no viable anti-war candidates anymore, and no major anti-war candidates won the Presidency in 2004 it can be said that they weren’t viable then either.

August 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: