U.S. says key al Qaeda in Iraq associate captured »

8.6

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 4

Propped: 49

Comments: 106

Archived

U.S. forces in Iraq have detained more than 70 suspected terrorists, including a key associate of the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Read Full Story at cnn.com »

Submitted By:

Karina

Karina Longworth blogs about film at Spout.com. She co-founded the film blog Cinematical in March 2005, whilst simultaneously completing an MA in Cinema Studies ...

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 122

Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
livetoridesoftail
Sept. 14, 2006, 10:29 a.m.
I believe it. The problem is that these rat bastards are replaced as fast as we can capture them.
"The War Against Terror" is nontraditional warfare that calls for a nontraditional approach. We can't just roll up in a bunch of tanks and do battle. It's going to take many years of this kind of behind-the-scenes stuff. Covert intelligence gathering and infiltrations, subversive hit squad deployment - CIA cloak & dagger stuff.
And I support it all, 100%.
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
JohnnyB
Sept. 14, 2006, 10:34 a.m.
i believe also theres lots in high positions, and the more we catch the more information we get so it makes sense we are catching more. stop being ignorant first post they didnt say second in command this time, they used it for when they did catch the second in command which IS a big deal.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
lfergie812
Sept. 14, 2006, 10:46 a.m.
They are still playing with the tail. If you want to kill the beast, you go for the head. If it's a two headed beast you go for both. The heads are in the hills of Pakistan and Afgan., not Iraq.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
joeblowe
Sept. 14, 2006, 10:52 a.m.
AAhhahhahhahhah. Now, get to torturing those scums and find out where the #1 guy is. Quick, before he gets away again!
Avg rating: (+3/-1 2)
saneman
Sept. 14, 2006, 10:53 a.m.
The only reason why getting Bin Laden may help to end or slow down al Qaeda is it would put a crimp on the channel of money used to keep them going, since Bin Laden is a multi billionaire; otherwise, capturing supposively high level al Qaeda only allows another one to step right in.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
endofdays
Sept. 14, 2006, 10:56 a.m.
To paraphrase Mark Twain -
"I support my country always, and my government when it deserves it"
Good job, fellas.
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
Star_Poet
Sept. 14, 2006, 11 a.m.
It's like one of those pizza-parlor games of "Whack-a-mole!"
They pop out of their caves as fast as they can and we keep bonking them on their heads and our arm will never grow tired.
"Go get 'em, boys!!"
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
baddass
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:24 a.m.
Let us see if we this picture right.
Before Saddam there is no Al Qaeda holding court in Iraq.
After Bush invades Iraq Al Qaeda is able not only to enter Iraq but establishes major control or influence in an area the size of New Hampshire.
Then Bush tells the world that Uncle Bin Laden has made Iraq the test of America's metal, and, if we leave they will just follow us to the USA.
So they capture a high ranking member of Al Qaeda and somehow that is supposed to be progress. This mentality is the same as a fly thinking he can defeat an elephant in a one on one fight.
But nobody but stupid people ever said we were dealing with an administration and their supporters as Hannity and O'Reilly who are operating with a full deck.
By the way, El Busho keeps saying "We will stay the course in Iraq," "We will stay until the job is finished," and, other nonsense.
What does that mean?
I dare the farter-in-chief of the fart bunch to tell us.
Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
Star_Poet
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:31 a.m.
*Whack! Whack! Whack! Whack! Whack!*
*Bonk! Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!*
*Pow Biff Bam!*
Terrorists die one by one as they emerge from their stinkin' caves.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
oreooreo
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:41 a.m.
This is great news
Avg rating: (+1/-2 -1)
bumperman
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:55 a.m.
EdRobert- I find it funny instead of complimenting our troops for a job well done you try and bash them. way to support our troops there big guy. you turn their sweat and blood into trying to make your politicle view known. You coward.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
intheknow
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:56 a.m.
al-Qaida is based on an ideology that calls for a return to a "pure" form of Islam as originated by Muhammad. The members of this group adhere to the beliefs of Egyptian-born Sayyid Qutb, who taught that the impurities of Western society (among other things) had defiled Islam through the centuries. Christians and Jews are particularly hated because they have failed to prevent (if not embraced) Western idolatries, such as alcohol, dancing, womens' rights, etc. The only solution is to absolutely destroy or bring under submission ANYONE who stands against the absolute teachings of Muhammad. They do this through jihad. If they fail in their attempts at any point, it simply means [to them] that they have not purified themselves sufficiently. They retreat, complete their purification (through prayer, training, etc.), make a new plan, and try again. Like it or not, these people do NOT negotiate. They will not stop until their personal beliefs change, or they are dead.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
yagotabekidin
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:57 a.m.
Getting the leaders is great. Depriving them of underlings is also good. but the simple fact is none of this will ever win the war unless we play their game of total aniolation of the opposition. Winning the war has been defined as institution of a democratic system there. "The American form of government is for a moral and religeous (Christian) people and is wholy inadequet for the governance of any other"
Avg rating: (+12/-0 12)
Virginia
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:58 a.m.
From the article: "The number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war stands at 2,669 since the 2003 invasion. Seven American civilian contractors of the military also have died in the conflict." Three died in the last day. How many will die on the last day we are there?
At the bottom of the article there is a section titled "Other developments". This additional quote is from that story: "The chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial said Thursday that he does not believe the ousted Iraqi leader was a dictator, The Associated Press reported. Judge Abdullah al-Amiri made the remark in a friendly exchange with Hussein, a day after the prosecution said the jurist should step down because he is biased toward the defense, the AP said."
What is going on here? I thought it was a forgone conclusion that Saddam was going to be found guilty for killing the almost 200,000 Kurds that the current trial is all about.
Avg rating: (+0/-2 -2)
redwriter
Sept. 14, 2006, 11:59 a.m.
This what happens when killing one leader with a laptop filled with notes.
good job, and keep the preasure on em.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
yagotabekidin
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:11 p.m.
Yes Virginia, they are Musslems. Sunis kill Sheits and visa versa. it's what they do. Sadam and the judge are Sunis, the Kurds were Sheits.
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
kerrywon
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:26 p.m.
YAY, so now the "insurgency"(aka the resistance) is once again in its final throes. Another so called "leader" is captured. So what? We have by our war of aggression created 10 generations of Iraqi resistance against the US military. That doesn't change the FACT that the US occupation of Iraq is the main catalyst in the resistance and attacks against occupation forces and will continue as long as we remain there.. You can capture all the "terrists" (anyone in Iraq who doesn't support the occupation) and its not going to change a damned thing.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
farmerman
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:30 p.m.
Yagota
I hope you are wrong about having to annihilate large numbers of Muslilms in order to win this war. Bush is trying the Democracy/freedom option, but I've always said on these threads that I believe the odds are no better than 50/50 of being successfull. If this fails, then you are right and it means all out war with Iran, Syria and probably Pakistan.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mmcl
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:38 p.m.
Virginia
(The chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial said Thursday that he does not believe the ousted Iraqi leader was a dictator, The Associated Press reported. Judge Abdullah al-Amiri made the remark in a friendly exchange with Hussein, a day after the prosecution said the jurist should step down because he is biased toward the defense, the AP said.")
I don't put too much on that exchange between the Judge and Hussein. It simply reflects what is the view of most Iraqis that Hussein was the legitimate President of Iraq at the time he committed the acts for which he is alleged to have committed. Doesn't mean he doesn't think Hussein did them. It is pretty much like Rush Limbaugh meeting President Carter. It is pretty clear that Rush has very little respect for the man, I still expect that he would address him as Mr. President. Respect for institutions is not just limited to the US.
Avg rating: (+12/-1 11)
yagotabekidin
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:40 p.m.
farmerman,
A democracy or a republic is dependant on the losers in a debate to peacefully concede and, through debate, to attempt to garner a majority in the future. That is not a possibility when you see the very existance of your opponent as an affront to god and the elimination of that affront your purpose for existance.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
SPEAKOUT
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:44 p.m.
rich4810: Yes, under your belief this will go on for ever.
There was a plan with dealing with the terrorists. However, Bush chose a different direction. Reasonable and intelligent people are starting to debate the real issues. I might add that it seems to be a growing majority. Also, with your reasoning we'd still be in Vietnam!!! Thank God, courageous people stepped forward back then and I am confident they will step forward again. This is the result of what happens when you think you have all the answers and don't allow it to be debated.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
mmcl
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:46 p.m.
yagotabekiddin
(Getting the leaders is great. Depriving them of underlings is also good. but the simple fact is none of this will ever win the war unless we play their game of total aniolation of the opposition.)
During the Vietnam War it is estimated that we killed between 1 and 5 million Vietnamese. It didn't end well for us then. Why should that approach be any different now? Especially if the enemy we are fighting is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda isn't an Iraqi organization. So militants are likely from elsewhere in the Middle East. Unless you plan to extend your war to every Sunni nation in the region it is unlikely to have a major impact.
The death squads may have more effect on the Sunni insurgency much like the Phoenix program did on the NLF in Vietnam. However, the likely beneficiary will be the Iranians who stand to benefit the most from the defeat of the Sunnis. Either way how do we benefit?
Avg rating: (+3/-3 0)
bumperman
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:52 p.m.
The artical first starts off saying soldiers captured them. who is the moron. You cheapen what they do with your every word. JIVE- i am buying into the JIVE. Have you or anyone close to you served in the Armed Forces.
Avg rating: (+4/-2 2)
endofdays
Sept. 14, 2006, 12:59 p.m.
Can someone please tell me why people use the phrase, "I could care less..." when talking about something they really don't care about? I mean, if they really don't care about it then they should be saying, "I COULDN'T care less...", right? Saying they "could care less" implies they care, at least enough to care less. So otherwise intelligent, articulate people are saying the exact opposite of what they mean to say.
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
farmerman
Sept. 14, 2006, 1 p.m.
Tagota
You are right. That is why the no better than 50/50 odds and I'm being very optimistic.
mmcl - Yes, we killed a lot of Vietnamese, but we never took the war to North Vietnam the way we could of. Look at how we bombed Germany and and Axis held cities. Vietnam was always a war fought by politicians, in a way similar to what we are doing in Iraq today. We are not attacking the sources of the terrorists like Syria and Iran.