world

U.S. military: No. 2 al-Qaida in Iraq leader killed

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

I don't think that people are saying that things are falling apart as they are getting better. I think that people are saying that they aren't getting better to the degree that is claimed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like I said, some people are against the invasion and any positive news is considered a threat to them that needs to be immediately muted. If anything that point has been reinforced by the posts following mine.

Bush sat there and told us that things were getting better when they were falling apart. Now the opposite side of the radical spectrum is here to tell us that things are falling apart as they are getting better. You have Bush on the right, and the radical liberals on the left. When you're in the middle it's hard to tell them apart, ne?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - I quess I'll quit repeating these things.....never.

My candidate will be bringing the troops out of Iraq in a precise and structured way, ensuring protection of our troops and equipment. The Iraqis will be required to take over their country and do their own policing.

Barack will send more troops to finally finish the job in Afghanistan. We will do the job we were supposed to do. We will do the job that george bush failed to do. We will send in the troops required to finish this war.

The majority of the people of this nation want the troops out of Iraq and Barack will do that. They also want the war in Afghanistan finished. They want their troops/family members home and not fighting a war forever.

It is unbelieveable that we're still in these wars after all these years. It is unbelievable that the greatest military force on the face of the earth is still involved in wars against enemies that are so ill equipped and numbers way below ours.

And the republicans want to stay involved in war.......forever. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic - Well then, counselor, maybe you can tell us why Bush supposedly 'made up stuff about WMDs'.

geoege bush wanted to be the war president.

george bush wanted to complete the job that many warmongers wanted. (his supporters)

george bush wanted to build a legacy besides the one his grandfather left.

george bush's vice president wanted to make billions on "no bid" contracts for Haliburton.

george bush wanted to send $Billions to his supporters who run the US war machine.

george bush was looking for a way to attack Iraq and when the Taliban attacked us, he went straight toward Iraq.

george bush deserted the war in Afghanistan for the war in Iraq.

he made up stuff because there wasn't real evidence to support his goal to attack Iraq, so he had to made up lies, fabricated evidence and out a CIA agent to get into Iraq.

I'm sure that I can come up with more reasons why george bush attacked Iraq, but it wasn't for freedom or to stop Al-Quaeda.

Moderator: Readers, please stop rehashing tired old arguments about WMDs and Saddam. They are not relevant to this discussion. Focus your comments on the current and future situations in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone with a minimum understanding of modern Iraqi history would appreciate that before Bush kicked out Saddam (the locus of power in the country), Iraq was one of the more secular states in the region. Indeed, there used to be a joke in Bagdhad about Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War. The punchline of the joke was that Saddam only tended to "get religion" when he started losing in that conflict.

To put this in another way, Saddam feared muslim fundamentalism just as much as the West still does. He saw the power of the mosques as a potential rival to his own despotism. As such, it could be argued that by removing Saddam (and not just marginalizing him), the coalition actually released forces that saw the radicals move in. Moreover, it has to be appreciated that many of the radicals in Iraq (AQ) are foreign nationals who are bringing anarchy to the country under the guise of muslim fundamentalism. Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between the AQ and Iraq's homegrown nutjobs - certain Sunni and Shiite groups.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I think some people are so angry about the invasion overall that they won't allow themselves to cheer even if the news is good. All information must be negative all the time without exception."

Of course there are people like this, but they're no different than their counterparts that claim Iraq is some sort of a success story. I have yet to see you critisize these imbeciles on JT despite years and years of your documented attacks on the others here.

You must understand one day, that to those that opposed this for humanitarian reasons after the hundreds of thousands of corpses it has produced, or the slide towards Islamic fundemantalism and fear and loathing of the West since the invasion in the area - tends to outweigh what the US military claims to be the death of yet another second in command of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Al-Qaida in Iraq that didn't actually exist in Iraq, of course, until Bush's minions allowed them to take root there that is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

Nonsense. Your question:

...maybe you can tell us why Bush supposedly 'made up stuff about WMDs'.

You know - motive.

What was it?

My answer:

Stuff was made up with the purpose of invading Iraq. The purpose in invading Iraq was to remake the Islamic world so that it would not be a threat to the freedoms which the terrorists supposedly envy.

Your question was about motive, not about "stuff". And if you want to use the word "hate" instead of "envy", that's fine with me. I wasn't quoting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sezwho,

"Stuff was made up with the purpose of invading Iraq."

Sorry. I need something a bit more specific than 'stuff'.

"The purpose in invading Iraq was to remake the Islamic world so that it would not be a threat to the freedoms which the terrorists supposedly envy."

The entire Islamic world? Interesting. I think the Arabs of the ME account for about 20 percent of the entire ummah.

I don't recall Bush or any politicians saying that the likes of those who carried out 9-11 envy our freedoms, I recall them saying that Islamic supremacists hate our freedoms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coulrophobic,

I think that question has already been answered. Stuff was made up with the purpose of invading Iraq. The purpose in invading Iraq was to remake the Islamic world so that it would not be a threat to the freedoms which the terrorists supposedly envy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both the political left and right in the West are ignoring the real problem. While they keep going at each other (like here), political islam works steadily, determinedly, and uncompromisingly towards its long-term goal. It is quite bizarre to watch this self-flagellation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We just had to make up stuff about WMD in Iraq as an excuse to invade despite no ties to al-Quaida or 9/11."

Well then, counselor, maybe you can tell us why Bush supposedly 'made up stuff about WMDs'.

You know - motive.

What was it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think some people are so angry about the invasion overall that they won't allow themselves to cheer even if the news is good. All information must be negative all the time without exception.

A step forward is great. But some can't let go of the two steps back. I cannot fault the right for cheering the step forward. Neither can I fault the left for clearly remembering the two steps back. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it just me? I imagine ordinary folks hear news of this monster's death and they cheer.

I think some people are so angry about the invasion overall that they won't allow themselves to cheer even if the news is good. All information must be negative all the time without exception.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there were no defeatest Left the gung-ho Right would find it necessary to invent one. And maybe it did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the US should have targeted the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population from the get-go.

If that is in the context of no military action, I agree. Iraq should not have been invaded.

But the defeatist Left just comes with the usual snark

It beats the "We can defeat them all!/ Bring it on!" mentality any day. Had the focus remained on al-Quaida, this guy probably would have been killed or captured a long time ago, and we would probably have bin Laden to boot. But no no. We just had to make up stuff about WMD in Iraq as an excuse to invade despite no ties to al-Quaida or 9/11. --Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Defeatist? Me? I don't think so. I just think the focus of the war in Iraq is fundamentally wrong. Instead of putting servicemen on street corners doing policing activities (a job they are not trained to do), supporting a puppet government of Iraqi exiles, and focusing on body counts (deja vu Vietnam), the US should have targeted the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population from the get-go.

Moreover, I agree that the rank and file of the Iraqi population are probably ecstatic that this AQ SOB has been slotted. These people (AQ) have no consideration for human life and they have subverted on of the world's great religions to meet their crooked agenda. At the same time, however, I see atrocities (even 1) by allied forces as heinous. We are talking about the US Armed forces and its allies, not the Nazis. As such, even 1 act is unacceptable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

above post should read as follows

But the defeatist Left just comes with the usual snark ("Another number 2 eh?") or conspiracy ("I question the timing") or idiotic moral relativism ( Al Qaeda kills tens of thousands;renegade MPs killed one Iraqi at Abu Ghrab, it's all the same.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it just me? I imagine ordinary folks hear news of this monster's death and they cheer. AQ targets women and children and unarmed men. It is known all over Iraq. It is what made ordinary citizens in places like Anbar turn against them.

But the defeatist Left just comes with the usual snark ("Another number 2 eh?") or conspiracy ("I question the timing") or idiotic moral relevance ( Al Qaeda kills tens of thousands;renegade MPs killed one Iraqi at Abu Ghrab, it's all the same.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nah, it means they killed a scumbag who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.

You mean an MP in charge of Iraqi prisoners? Does this mean we are fragging our own troops now? Deja vu or what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nah, it means they killed a scumbag who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.

How do you know that?

Well, I am not sad he is dead, but then, I could only be happier if we had him alive so we could get information on number one.

I think this is a small victory and worth celebrating. If Bush and the Republicans can be said to have dug us in a hole 50 foot deep, I suppose this raises us to 42 feet. Still a long way to go. While I am happy he is dead, as a key element of al-Quaida, his death hardly gets anyone off the hook. But here is to a small victory in the battle Obama will end and McCain would only perpetuate.--Cirroc

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everything must change

Nothing stays the same....

....For that's the way of time

No one and nothing goes unchanged

I think Rumsfeld set the stage for this when he observed that "they" would change "us" or "we" would change "them" and said that we elected to change them.

What was always true is that there is no changing them without changing ourselves and that no matter what, we and they were going to change anyway.

We can't measure success in this war by how many militants and which militants we have killed. That is not the war we need to fight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Totally, absolutely irrelevant. They killed one Jihadist leader, and another one takes his place. Until they start addressing the Jihad, nothing will change. But increasingly it looks as if they never will, so in the end.... sayonara, Western Civilization. Nothing lasts forever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well Sarge the commanders can never say with absolute certainty that things in Iraq will ever be safe if all the troops leave, that is how absolutely fragile the situation is there. This after over 5 years of war in Iraq. So why continue to endanger American lives, let the Iraqis fight and die for their country.

But finally some end to this insanity, US troops are supposed to leave by 2012, that's still freaking 4 years away though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neverknow2 - Yes, I agree. You think very strange.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strange how it comes out at exactly the same time as a recession is looming?? I think very strange.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rjd jr - The commanders on the ground would disagree with you. But, hey, what do they know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

some14some,

You beat me to it. Seems like the No. 2 position can't be a very popular one to be in these days. We keep knocking them off. I wonder what the incentive package is to get someone to step up and fill the post every time the No. 2 guy gets blown to bits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree adaydream, bring them home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Time to bring the troops home"

The commanders on the ground will decide when it's time to bring the troops home. Unless, of course, Barack gets elected.

"does that mean half day for the soldiers over there?"

Nah, it means they killed a scumbag who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

does that mean half day for the soldiers over there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well that does it. Troops have done a great job.

Time to bring the troops home. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No.2...people don't know how many No.2 leaders are there in AQ and how many of them have been killed so far. Number One still at large?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites