U.S.-led forces in Iraq say they killed Qaeda leader

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSTRE4928KS20081003

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces said they shot dead a leader of al Qaeda in Iraq on Friday who was the mastermind behind a series of deadly recent bombings in Baghdad.

A spokesman for coalition forces said Mahir Ahmad Mahmud Judu' al-Zubaydi, also known as Abu Assad or Abu Rami, had been al Qaeda in Iraq's "emir" of the Rusafa neighborhood of the capital.

Troops surrounded a building in the Adhamiya area of Baghdad after intelligence reports that Abu Rami was inside, and called on the occupants to surrender, the spokesman said.

Coalition forces were shot at from the building and returned fire, killing Abu Rami and a female, spokesman Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll said in a statement.

A cell in Abu Rami's network was believed to be responsible for attacks on Thursday which killed eight people and wounded more than 30, the statement said.

Suicide bombers struck Shi'ite worshippers as they gathered for prayers at two mosques in Baghdad to celebrate the Muslim Eid al-Fitr feast on Thursday, killing a total of 16 people and wounding nearly 60, officials said.

Abu Rami was also suspected of car bombings and mortar attacks in 2006 and 2007, one of which killed more than 200 people, the coalition forces statement said.

He was believed to be a planner of kidnappings and executions and a 2006 video recording showed him shooting a Russian diplomat, it added.

Abu Rami joined al Qaeda in Iraq from the Ansar al-Islam group in 2004, the statement said.

"His removal from the AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq) network will send shockwaves through Baghdad's terrorist bombing networks," Driscoll said.

"Its ability to conduct grisly attacks against Iraqi civilians and Coalition and Iraqi forces has been severely crippled by this precision operation."

Violence overall in Iraq is at four-year lows and al Qaeda militants no longer control large numbers of villages and city districts as they did until 2007.



So now that they've been smoked out of their holes, and we are killing Al Qaeda leaders, why exactly are we leaving so they can throw a party?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I'm guessing the really effective Al-Qaeda leaders are in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they are close to getting not just one, but a whole bunch of nuclear weapons.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Wow oh Wow, we have killed Al-Quida #3 for the 3 thousandths time. Sadly someone will rise up to replace him, happily for the USA, most of Al-Quida leadership in Iraq have proved to be inept boobs from a political standpoint, because they have alienated the very Sunnis they need support from. The downside rub in this whole wacko mole game is that sooner or later we will find an Al-Quida leader that does not prove so politically inept.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Wow oh Wow, we have killed Al-Quida #3 for the 3 thousandths time. Sadly someone will rise up to replace him, happily for the USA, most of Al-Quida leadership in Iraq have proved to be inept boobs from a political standpoint, because they have alienated the very Sunnis they need support from. The downside rub in this whole wacko mole game is that sooner or later we will find an Al-Quida leader that does not prove so politically inept.

If Al Qaeda still has competent people, why wouldnt they have put them in charge already?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Wow oh Wow, we have killed Al-Quida #3 for the 3 thousandths time. Sadly someone will rise up to replace him, happily for the USA, most of Al-Quida leadership in Iraq have proved to be inept boobs from a political standpoint, because they have alienated the very Sunnis they need support from. The downside rub in this whole wacko mole game is that sooner or later we will find an Al-Quida leader that does not prove so politically inept.

If Al Qaeda still has competent people, why wouldnt they have put them in charge already?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we are always fighting the last war, look how long it took for Lincoln to find a Grant and a Sherman during our civil war, but very frequently it takes many failures to have someone to emerge from under a bushel basket, and hit upon a strategy that works. To some extent, we finally hit upon our Petraeus, which does not preclude Al-Quida from doing the same. The creme always rises to the top during such times.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
said they shot dead a leader of al Qaeda

They make that claim at least once or twice a year, especially close to elections, "Killed the #2 leader of AQ in Iraq" has happened often enough to be a running joke at Fark.

So now that they've been smoked out of their holes, and we are killing Al Qaeda leaders, why exactly are we leaving so they can throw a party?

If AQ is now "severely crippled" or even "on its last legs" in Iraq, why can't we declare "Mission Accomplished" and bring the troops home instead of piling up more American dead?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
said they shot dead a leader of al Qaeda

They make that claim at least once or twice a year, especially close to elections, "Killed the #2 leader of AQ in Iraq" has happened often enough to be a running joke at Fark.

So now that they've been smoked out of their holes, and we are killing Al Qaeda leaders, why exactly are we leaving so they can throw a party?

If AQ is now "severely crippled" or even "on its last legs" in Iraq, why can't we declare "Mission Accomplished" and bring the troops home instead of piling up more American dead?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therein lies the rub DaveS, Al-Quida has never been 15% of the Iraqi insurgent problem, and if we leave now, all the political instability we have created could cause a civil war that spills far past Iraqi borders.

So lets comfort ourselves and pretend the only problem in Iraq is Al-Quida.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
If AQ is now "severely crippled" or even "on its last legs" in Iraq, why can't we declare "Mission Accomplished" and bring the troops home instead of piling up more American dead?

Rather foolish to give the terrorists a chance to regroup. Don't turn your back on your living enemy when you can shoot him in the face.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
If AQ is now "severely crippled" or even "on its last legs" in Iraq, why can't we declare "Mission Accomplished" and bring the troops home instead of piling up more American dead?

Rather foolish to give the terrorists a chance to regroup. Don't turn your back on your living enemy when you can shoot him in the face.

Using this inane logic the U.S. should be in Syria, Lebanon, and Pakistan right now. Especially Pakistan. After all, AQ is has regrouped in the mountains of Pakistan, why haven't we invaded since it's "foolish to give the terrorists a chance to regroup", right?

Of course, we all know the real solution; don't let them regroup, except you don't need 150K troops to do that now do you? Nope.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
said they shot dead a leader of al Qaeda

They make that claim at least once or twice a year, especially close to elections, "Killed the #2 leader of AQ in Iraq" has happened often enough to be a running joke at Fark.

So now that they've been smoked out of their holes, and we are killing Al Qaeda leaders, why exactly are we leaving so they can throw a party?

If AQ is now "severely crippled" or even "on its last legs" in Iraq, why can't we declare "Mission Accomplished" and bring the troops home instead of piling up more American dead?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therein lies the rub DaveS, Al-Quida has never been 15% of the Iraqi insurgent problem, and if we leave now, all the political instability we have created could cause a civil war that spills far past Iraqi borders.

So lets comfort ourselves and pretend the only problem in Iraq is Al-Quida.

I realize that :) . AQ had no presence in Iraq until after we invaded, smashed it to pieces then invited AQ and the local insurgents to "bring it on."