Top al Qaeda in Iraq suspect arrested

[SOS]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/iraq.alqaeda.ap/)


That's why.



Top al Qaeda in Iraq suspect arrested


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's national security adviser on Sunday announced the arrest of the second most senior figure in al Qaeda.

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was arrested a few days ago, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said.

"We announce today the arrest of the most important al Qaeda leader after the criminal Abu Ayoub al-Masri. He's the second man in the organization," he said.

The suspect was "directly responsible for the criminal Haitham al-Badri, the mastermind and the bomber of the Samarra shrine," al-Rubaie added.

The bombing of the Shiite shrine in February inflamed tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and triggered reprisal attacks that continue to this day.

"As we promised our people we will relentlessly continue our war on terror," the national security adviser said.

[mascan42]

Good news . . . the best part is that he was caught by the Iraqis and not the Americans. That goes a long way to making the fight legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqi people. The sooner they can take care of things themselves, the sooner we can get our own boys out.

That said, this guy was replaced by another scumbag 5 minutes after he was caught.

[sclone]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/iraq.alqaeda.ap/)


That's why.
That's why what? Al qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until AFTER the invasion of Iraq. So that's why what? If you're defending the "war" on terror by saying, "Look, we can destroy bad things we essentially created," that's a pretty weak argument.

[Abysmul]

That's why what? Al qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until AFTER the invasion of Iraq. So that's why what? If you're defending the "war" on terror by saying, "Look, we can destroy bad things we essentially created," that's a pretty weak argument.
Better to have them there than here

[mascan42]

Better to have them there than here
Oh trust me, they're here also. They're just better at hiding.

[NoSurviivors]

... and in other news, the sun set in the West today..

[sclone]

Better to have them there than here
Did you even read what I wrote? This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said (what you quoted).

[tar_baby]

That's why what? Al qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until AFTER the invasion of Iraq. So that's why what? If you're defending the "war" on terror by saying, "Look, we can destroy bad things we essentially created," that's a pretty weak argument.

wait a minute here?...so now we are creating al qaeda?...whether you want to believe it or not there have been al qaeda operatives in iraq...there is a much larger presence there now because we chased them out of afghanistan but does that mean we have to stop taking them out?...some of them went into iraq because of our great success in afghanistan and we have to keep after them...

just because some of them are in a different country does not mean they don't exist

[B54]

wait a minute here?...so now we are creating al qaeda?..whether you want to believe it or not, there were al qaeda operatives in iraq wayyy before this war started

Out of all the things I have ever read, this has to be the one of the most idiotic. You could not be more wrong. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda took interest in the region and is known to have been responsible for actively organizing and aiding local resistance to the occupying coalition forces and the emerging government. We essentially caused al-Qaeda to come to Iraq. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before 2003.

[tar_baby]

i wasnt saying they were in iraq to take iraq down...im not saying that at all

just that there were members present in iraq...members who were NOT working against iraq

[B54]

i wasnt saying they were in iraq to take iraq down...im not saying that at all

just that there were members present in iraq...members who were NOT working against iraq

It was pretty obvious what you meant what you wrote when I orginally quoted you. You changed it to suit the facts after you read mine. It is pretty obvious from your other posts how you feel, I did not need this one to show me that you support a Conflict based on a lie. Just one more time to remind you :

wait a minute here?...so now we are creating al qaeda?..whether you want to believe it or not, there were al qaeda operatives in iraq wayyy before this war started

Your orginal quote contradicts exactly what your second one said.

[tar_baby]

It was pretty obvious what you meant what you wrote when I orginally quoted you. You changed it to suit the facts after you read mine. It is pretty obvious from your other posts how you feel, I did not need this one to show me that you support a Conflict based on a lie. Just one more time to remind you :

to suit the facts...in my original statement the the edited one i stand by the fact that there were al qaeda operatives in iraq BEFORE..let me say this again...BEFORE we went in there...ok..just to get that clear

and for you to say that I think al qaeda was there to take down iraq is COMPLETELY wrong because if you know my views I have always thought Iraq has supported al qaeda for a long time...now by a long time i am meaning BEFORE we went in there and invaded

[tar_baby]

but i have also said that we didnt attack iraq because we thought they were involved in 9-11...it is a broader war on terror that we are wiping out and this includes any threat to the US (which Iraq was)

[B54]

to suit the facts...in my original statement the the edited one i stand by the fact that there were al qaeda operatives in iraq BEFORE..let me say this again...BEFORE we went in there...ok..just to get that clear

and for you to say that I think al qaeda was there to take down iraq is COMPLETELY wrong because if you know my views I have always thought Iraq has supported al qaeda for a long time...now by a long time i am meaning BEFORE we went in there and invaded

I am sure there were operatives there, there are al-Qaeda operatives in the United States, Sudan, Afganistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, and others. The way you made it sound was as if there was a strong and influencial presence in Iraq before the invasion, which is obviously not the case.

but i have also said that we didnt attack iraq because we thought they were involved in 9-11...it is a broader war on terror that we are wiping out and this includes any threat to the US (which Iraq was)

What threat? The War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq. Just admit it. I am extremely weary of people like you and certain politicans still saying they were a threat. A good leader can admit to his mistakes and confess he was wrong. Our intelligence was wrong. I am no longer concerned with who caused it, whether it be Rumsfeld or Bush. What is important is to move foward, not look at the past. The faster we can admit we messed up, the better we can focus on fixing the problem we have created.

[JoeFromDetroit]

"Look, we can destroy bad things we essentially created,"
I love that shit.:icon_lol:

[tar_baby]

i still think the war on terror had a lot to do with iraq, which is why we went in and took that threat (Saddam) out

[sclone]

i still think the war on terror had a lot to do with iraq, which is why we went in and took that threat (Saddam) out
There's no purpose in arguing with you. The facts are pretty clear. Al Qaeda in Iraq had really nothing to do with the terrorist network Al Qaeda. You do understand that this isn't just Al Qaeda which happens to exist in Iraq, right? The organization is actually called Al Qaeda In Iraq. Do you know why? Because it was created AFTER our invasion, and they latched on to this idea of Al Qaeda as a well-planned international terrorist network because they knew it would give them some recognition. Here's the unofficial history:

"Following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is believed that Zarqawi moved westward into Iraq, where he may have received medical treatment in Baghdad for an injured leg. It is believed that he developed extensive ties in Iraq with Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Islamist militant group that was based in the extreme northeast of the country, but there is no evidence that deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government was involved in harboring Zarqawi or Ansar al-Islam. Following the U.S-led invasion of Iraq, JTJ was developed as a militant network composed of foreign fighters, remnants of Ansar al-Islam, and indigenous Sunni extremists to resist the coalition occupation forces and their Iraqi allies. The group's spiritual advisor was Abu Anas al-Shami."

By the way, JTJ refers to the group's name BEFORE THEY CHANGED IT TO AL QAEDA IN IRAQ in 2004: Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq#Origins

[The Sarge]

JEEEEEZUS....

How many "Top Al Qaeda" guys are there?

[fandango86]

Of course there were Al Qaeda representatives in Iraq before we invaded. They are in every country in the world, actively seeking more members who hate the US. However, Al Qaeda organizationally did not have to exist in Iraq prior to the invasion, because organizationally, Al Qaeda is a group that operates outside and opposed to the government. So they obviously didn't need to have such an organization in Iraq, because the government itself was made up mostly of people who shared the same ideologies towards the US.

I AM NOT SAYING THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WAS INVOLVED WITH AL QAEDA. Just that the people that hated the US who were deposed from power and not incarcerated chose to re-organize and align themselves with Al Qaeda. So, if you're an oversimplifing dummy you could say we created Al Qaeda in Iraq - What makes that statement silly is that you're leaving out the part that this was done by dismantling a governmental organization that had exactly the same ideologies.

I don't think anyone ever said that invading Iraq would immediately eliminate all the people who wanted to kill us. We've just made it harder for them to do so. A terrorist organization that wants to kill us is bad. A government that wants to do so is much worse.

[novalia]

JEEEEEZUS....

How many "Top Al Qaeda" guys are there?

quick someone repost that terrorist organization map!!
i think we have a few on LI.. but i let them keep the extra pennies when i buy my coffee so i think my family is safe....

[Legend of Snuka]

What threat? The War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq. created.

Actually the War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq the nation but a ton to do with the geography of Iraq. It was a strategic move to basically surround and pressure terrorist sponsoring nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia to be tougher on these elements in their own country. Look at the map.... We have Iran surrounded, troops on the border of Saudi Arabia and troops on the border of Syria.

For the record, I didn't think it was a great idea to go into Iraq in the first place and I think the war has been mismanaged but I can sort of see the strategic reasoning behind it.

[B54]

Actually the War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq the nation but a ton to do with the geography of Iraq. It was a strategic move to basically surround and pressure terrorist sponsoring nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia to be tougher on these elements in their own country. Look at the map.... We have Iran surrounded, troops on the border of Saudi Arabia and troops on the border of Syria.

For the record, I didn't think it was a great idea to go into Iraq in the first place and I think the war has been mismanaged but I can sort of see the strategic reasoning behind it.

The geography of Iraq is your justification to invade the country? If anything, we have created an exponential amount of terrorists. Muslims around the World have been left enraged with our actions. We will feel the reprecusions of our actions very soon.

Saudia Arabia does not support terrorism. They do not want terrorists in there country. Saudia Arabia supported Israel and they are against al-Qaeda (the government as a whole).

Having Iran 'surrounded' (which it isn't, as you stated) proves nothing. We are not going to invade Iran so I do not really understand the benefit of 'surrounding' them. It obviously has no effect since they have ignored all our demands, as well as the United Nations.

There is no strategic reasoning. You make me want to pound your head into a wall until you finally understand. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. The government was not a threat to the United States or bordering countries (they possessed no WMDs), there was no link between them and 9.11 (as the Secretary of State and CIA has said), and we are not creating a solid democracy. Iraq is just one mistake after another. Look at all the problems it has created. From elevating gas prices, dividing the United States, causing us to forget about our own nation's problems, getting our soldiers killed, and hundred of others that I do not have time to write out.

I still can not believe, at this time, that an American actually believes that there was a reason to invade Iraq. Apparently you do (along with 52 percent of the country). With all the information and intelligence we have gathered over the past 3 years, I would like to believe that someone with any common sense could understand that it was a mistake. This issue really proves that the majority of the country is completely ignorant and downright stupid.

[novalia]

The geography of Iraq is your justification to invade the country? If anything, we have created an exponential amount of terrorists. Muslims around the World have been left enraged with our actions. We will feel the reprecusions of our actions very soon.

it aggravates me how little you know and how much you type..
why dont you type less and read more.

[novalia]

i'll give you two titles to get you started.
all the shah's men
charlie wilson's war

those are at the very least keeping it within the twentieth century.. if you want to go back further try:
the crusades thru arab eyes

know thy enemy.

[Turtle]

JEEEEEZUS....

How many "Top Al Qaeda" guys are there?
2,139

[B54]

it aggravates me how little you know and how much you type..
why dont you type less and read more.

I am sorry for choosing to believe that the Iraqi people would be upset at us for invading their country. Upset enough to form there own militia's. Upset enough to join anti-Coalition forces. Upset enough to take up arms and defend there own country. I must be mistaken. Out of all the times you have gone against me, all you say is 'How little you know' or the 'The blind leading the blind'. How about you actually say something that refutes my point?

[novalia]

i know you're only 17 or 18 but the world and its problems didnt start only when you decided it was important...

learn more/type less

[B54]

i know you're only 17 or 18 but the world and its problems didnt start only when you decided it was important...

learn more/type less

I know they didn't. Maybe you would like to point out the part where I indicated where I alluded to that point.

Again, all you do is tell me to go read 2 books, one of which I have read. I really do not see the correlation between Operation Ajax and the War on Terror today. Maybe you would like to share?

I have no problem debating you, but you haven't said anything to dissprove my statement as of yet.

[novalia]

Again, all you do is tell me to go read 2 books, one of which I have read.

only one?
like i said read more type less.. i know you want to debate.. you are so occupied with debating and defending your point.

but again.. less debating more learning..

and what i said was that it is tiring to watch you aimlessly typing.. without the knowledge and depth of understanding about what you are even discussing.

[Legend of Snuka]

The geography of Iraq is your justification to invade the country? If anything, we have created an exponential amount of terrorists. Muslims around the World have been left enraged with our actions. We will feel the reprecusions of our actions very soon.

Saudia Arabia does not support terrorism. They do not want terrorists in there country. Saudia Arabia supported Israel and they are against al-Qaeda (the government as a whole).

Having Iran 'surrounded' (which it isn't, as you stated) proves nothing. We are not going to invade Iran so I do not really understand the benefit of 'surrounding' them. It obviously has no effect since they have ignored all our demands, as well as the United Nations.

There is no strategic reasoning. You make me want to pound your head into a wall until you finally understand. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. The government was not a threat to the United States or bordering countries (they possessed no WMDs), there was no link between them and 9.11 (as the Secretary of State and CIA has said), and we are not creating a solid democracy. Iraq is just one mistake after another. Look at all the problems it has created. From elevating gas prices, dividing the United States, causing us to forget about our own nation's problems, getting our soldiers killed, and hundred of others that I do not have time to write out.

I still can not believe, at this time, that an American actually believes that there was a reason to invade Iraq. Apparently you do (along with 52 percent of the country). With all the information and intelligence we have gathered over the past 3 years, I would like to believe that someone with any common sense could understand that it was a mistake. This issue really proves that the majority of the country is completely ignorant and downright stupid.

Settle down tiger....if you actually read my statement is I said I didn't agree with invading Iraq. Basically I was trying to speculate on the real strategic reasoning the government invaded Iraq in relation to the war on terror. Don't just skim and react....read and think about the stuff...

[B54]

Settle down tiger....if you actually read my statement is I said I didn't agree with invading Iraq. Basically I was trying to speculate on the real strategic reasoning the government invaded Iraq in relation to the war on terror. Don't just skim and react....read and think about the stuff...

I did not skim it, these are your own words :

Actually the War on Terror had nothing to do with Iraq the nation but a ton to do with the geography of Iraq. It was a strategic move to basically surround and pressure terrorist sponsoring nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia to be tougher on these elements in their own country. Look at the map.... We have Iran surrounded, troops on the border of Saudi Arabia and troops on the border of Syria.

You said the conflict in Iraq deals with geography. You basically tried to look for a reason that we are in Iraq now. I just pointed out that there is not one.

[Legend of Snuka]

I did not skim it, these are your own words :



You said the conflict in Iraq deals with geography. You basically tried to look for a reason that we are in Iraq now. I just pointed out that there is not one.

Personally, I hate this current administration ,but THEY had some sort of reasoning no matter how bad/evil it might have been...They did not wake up one morning and say "Hey I got an idea, lets invade Iraq".

And my opinion is that they thought "Hey we know the main problem elements are in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran...we can't just invade them..but Saddamn's been a son of a bitch, we can justify in some sense to take him down. And Iraq lies right in the heart of the problamatic Middle East where we can exort some influence on these nations." If Iraq was located in the middle of the ocean, would we have went in??? Can't say geography had nothing to do with it..

[B54]

Personally, I hate this current administration ,but THEY had some sort of reasoning no matter how bad/evil it might have been...They did not wake up one morning and say "Hey I got an idea, lets invade Iraq".

And my opinion is that they thought "Hey we know the main problem elements are in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran...we can't just invade them..but Saddamn's been a son of a bitch, we can justify in some sense to take him down. And Iraq lies right in the heart of the problamatic Middle East where we can exort some influence on these nations." If Iraq was located in the middle of the ocean, would we have went in??? Can't say geography had nothing to do with it..

I am sure geography played some part, but it is not the right justification. Saudia Arabia has become more strigent on terrorists in there country ever since 9.11. And Iran, well, we have to wait and see on that issue.