(POL) AL-QUAIDA says it's winning

[SFL Cat]

Last one today, I promise.

hxxp://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/10/D8LAC4OG1.html

By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq

Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a new audio tape Friday to be winning the war faster than expected in Iraq and said it had mobilized 12,000 fighters who had "vowed to die for God's sake."

The U.S. military, meanwhile, reported that three U.S. soldiers and a Marine were killed Thursday in Iraq, the U.S. military said, bringing the number of Americans who have died in the country so far this month to 25. At least 105 U.S. forces died in October, the fourth highest monthly toll of the war.

On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.

"The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God's sake," a man who identified himself as Abu Hamza al- Muhajir said.

Al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops. "We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he told the U.S.

"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house _ which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said. It was not clear what Rumieh was referring to.

Al-Muhajir became the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq after Abu Musab al- Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June. The tape could not be independently verified.

"The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

Describing President Bush as "the most stupid president" in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected due to U.S. policies.

Since the war started in March 2003, 2,845 members of the U.S. military have died, according to an Associated Press count.

The Iraqi army also said it captured the Egyptian leader of an al- Qaida cell in restive Anbar province.

Acting on a tip, Iraqi soldiers descended on a building in the city of Rawah, 175 miles northwest of Baghdad, where they arrested local al- Qaida commander Abu Muhayyam al-Masri, whose name, like that of the group's overall leader, is a pseudonym meaning, "the Egyptian," a Defense Ministry official said.

Two aides, Abu Issam al-Libi, or "the Libyan," and Abu Zaid al-Suri, "the Syrian," also were arrested, along with nine other members of the cell, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

The pseudonyms appeared to mark the men as foreign fighters, thousands of whom are said by Iraq's government to have crossed the porous border with Syria about 55 miles west of Rawah to join the insurgency. Their nationalities were not confirmed.

The official said al-Suri confessed to organizing at least one suicide bombing in Baghdad. He said the raid also netted a large quantity of weapons.

Rawah lies deep in Anbar province, where Sunni Arab insurgents routinely launch deadly attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces that show no sign of diminishing in numbers or intensity, more than three years after the U.S. invasion.

At least 11 of the American deaths in November have been in Anbar, including a Marine who died Thursday from wound suffered in fighting there.

A roadside bomb also killed two American soldiers and wounded another Thursday in western Baghdad, the U.S. command said. Another soldier was killed and one wounded by a roadside bomb that struck their truck Thursday during a combat logistics patrol west of Haditha, 140 miles northwest of the capital.

In other violence, six Iraqi soldiers were killed and 10 wounded when a suicide bomber drove his explosives-rigged car into an army checkpoint in the northern city of Tal Afar, the military said.

Army spokesman Brig. Najim Abdullah said the car stopped after soldiers opened fire as it sped toward the checkpoint. The unit's commander, who was among those killed, then led a group of soldiers toward it, when the driver, apparently faking death, detonated the explosives, Abdullah said.

Tal Afar has suffered frequent insurgent attacks, despite President Bush's declaration in March that the city was an example of progress made in bringing security to Iraq. Tal Afar lies 93 miles east of the Syrian border and 260 miles northwest of Baghdad.

Three members of a family were killed by gunmen who stormed their home near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, police said.

At least 33 bodies also were found in Baghdad and several nearby cities, morgue officials said.

The new deaths came a day after Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shemari estimated 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war _ about three times previously accepted estimates.

In comments to the AP during a visit to Austria, al-Shemari said he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals _ although such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.

"It is an estimate," al-Shemari said.

Hassan Salem, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, said the 150,000 figure included civilians and police, as well as those who were abducted, killed and whose bodies were brought to morgues run by the Health Ministry. SCIRI is Iraq's largest Shiite political organization and holds the largest number of seats in parliament.

No official account for Iraq deaths in the post-invasion conflict has ever been available. Accurate figures are difficult to establish because police and hospitals often give widely conflicting tolls of those killed in major bombings. Death figures also are reported through multiple channels by government agencies that function with varying efficiency.

A member of the movement of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Shemari also repeated the Shiite-dominated government's demands for a speedier U.S. transfer of authority to Iraqi forces and the withdrawal of U.S. troops to their bases, away from Iraq's cities and towns.

"The army of America didn't do its job. ... They tie the hands of my government," al-Shemari said. presence in Iraq.

[Ksyrup]

"It took me more than 4 years, but I finally got a new job."

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"It took me more than 4 years, but I finally got a new job."

LOL!

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"It took me more than 4 years, but I finally got a new job."

why hasnt bagdad bob not gotten a tv show in america? he was funny.

Hmm maybe the White House should hire Bob to do reports from Iraq?

[CraigSca]

How can they be winning when we're not even sure how to accurately spell their name?

[Oilers9911]

Did anyone expect them to say, wow we are really getting a shit-hammering here. US and A number 1! Oooops, a little Borat slipped in there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die ... "

Make it so Number One.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Did anyone expect them to say, wow we are really getting a shit-hammering here. US and A number 1! Oooops, a little Borat slipped in there.

No, but I was hoping they would say, "Oakland Raiders beginning to turn season around and make run at playoff."

[ISiddiqui]

Well the question to ask is could he be right? I mean the insurgency in Iraq is not dying down, even though a lot of that is nationalist fervor and not necessarily religious. Though it seems in Afghanistan the Taliban has once again become a force to reckon with (they've taken back like half the country). They are getting a ton of recruits.

[Butter]

I think the lovely partisan point that SFL Cat wants us to argue is that al-Qaeda supposedly got what they wanted by having the Democrats take some power away from Bush.

Hey, that makes me angry, etc. etc. *yawn*

[Warhammer]

Let's see, the side they wanted to win our elections won. That right there is a HUGE win for them, or they believe it to be.

I was talking to one of the guys in my boardgame group on Wednesday night, half of his unit is back in Iraq, and he said that where the outfit is, it is really quiet. Most of the fighting is in the Baghdad area, and the countryside is pretty quiet. He also said that most of the guys in his unit feel they really need to close the border with Iran and Syria. They know stuff is coming across, but they have yet to close it off. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Greyroofoo]

How come its never reported how many insurgents the US kills? We always hear of US military deaths, but not the casualties of whom we fight.

[ISiddiqui]

Are we sure that they wouldn't have claimed credit if the Republicans ended up winning? You know, saying that now the US can continue on its evil path which will cause Muslims around the world to rise up?

It's telling that this comes out AFTER the results are known. Then they can claim anything.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are we sure that they wouldn't have claimed credit if the Republicans ended up winning? You know, saying that now the US can continue on its evil path which will cause Muslims around the world to rise up?

It's telling that this comes out AFTER the results are known. Then they can claim anything.

Well, its not like Al-Qaeda did any gloating after Bush won the 2004 election. Also, weren't they going to make the Red States bleed or something? The change in tone after the 2004 election which was, we're coming after you, to now which is, we're winning, see how many we've killed is telling. They are trying to manipulate the US electorate and people, and to a degree it is working.

They win by outlasting us. They win when we withdraw, if there is not a viable Iraq government. They win by not losing. We only win if we keep them from winning.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

They are trying to manipulate the US electorate and people, and to a degree it is working.

To a significant degree it has worked very well.

[Flasch186]

I honestly believe Al Qaeda wants a Hawkish/Republican administration or Right admin in most countries....it gives them ample purpose to be equal and opposite of their enemy in their fight to create a Caliphate (sp?). That is their stated end goal anyways, so if a country went lefty, wayyyyy way lefty and said, "while we want to negotiate with Al Qaeda were not going to give up our sovereignty to them." Al Qaeda would still infilitrate the country and try to overthrow them so by saying a move to the left, however miniscule that move is, is helping "them" or a sign that they're winning, is ridiculous....you have to keep theyre end goal in mind and never let them win in that goal. In my opinion.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are we sure that they wouldn't have claimed credit if the Republicans ended up winning? You know, saying that now the US can continue on its evil path which will cause Muslims around the world to rise up?

It's telling that this comes out AFTER the results are known. Then they can claim anything.

Were I a democratic party spokesman, I'd step in right now and slam the notion that Americans voting for that side are turning their backs on Israel. I'd makes sure it was a front page headline.

Were I a dem, I'd be horrified at that notion, no matter how ridiculous it was. I'd come back with a media attack back quickly.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To a significant degree it has worked very well.

I think that that is total BS, rhetoric, and fear-mongering....

The Democrats want to beat the snot out of Al-Qaeda just as much as the Republicans do. Its just how you go about doing it that they differ on, say like Iraq for example (we dont need another thread rehashing the bipartisan evidence that AQ wasn't in Iraq prior to the war, the fact that we didnt finish the job in Afghanistan, how we havnt secured the border, how we havnt secured the border of Iraq [possible venus fly trap theory there wihch would need more troops to execute fully], etc.).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

They win by outlasting us. They win when we withdraw, if there is not a viable Iraq government. They win by not losing. We only win if we keep them from winning.

They also win by US troops continuing to be in Iraq, giving them a greater recruitment angle. They win by gaining more supporters due to rhetoric about US occupation and 'neo-colonialism'.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They also win by US troops continuing to be in Iraq, giving them a greater recruitment angle. They win by gaining more supporters due to rhetoric about US occupation and 'neo-colonialism'.

I think that they would come up with a reason no matter what to support recruitment towards their end goal of creating the Huge Islamic state from Egypt East through Afghanistan and North through Turkey IIRC.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think that they would come up with a reason no matter what to support recruitment towards their end goal of creating the Huge Islamic state from Egypt East through Afghanistan and North through Turkey IIRC.

They could come up with a reason for recruitment, but people wouldn't necessarily buy into those reasons as much as actually seeing US troops occupying Iraq and some idiot soldiers committing crimes and torture of captives, etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think that that is total BS, rhetoric, and fear-mongering....

Which leaves me to believe that you're either in complete denial or blind as a bat.

The Democrats want to beat the snot out of Al-Qaeda just as much as the Republicans do.

Although that statement, if you truly believe that, at least opens up the possibility that you're just a damned fool.

[JPhillips]

So now we've gotten to the point where voting is in itself a victory for the terrorists.

Freedom is slavery.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which leaves me to believe that you're either in complete denial or blind as a bat.

Although that statement, if you truly believe that, at least opens up the possibility that you're just a damned fool.

It's that damned reality with a liberal bias, eh, Jon? We all know that Democrats want to beat AQ MORE than Republicans, because Republicans just want to keep them around for campaign issues.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So now we've gotten to the point where voting is in itself a victory for the terrorists.

No, not voting in & of itself.

[cartman]

I guess I missed all of those Democrats campaigning on the platform of "Burkhas and prayer mats for all"

[cartman]

Another point, why are you putting stock in what Al-Qaeda (Quaeda, Khaida, however the hell it is spelled) is saying now? If before their statements were always full of shit, why believe them now?

[JPhillips]

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."

Gilbert K. Chesterton

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

I guess I missed all of those Democrats campaigning on the platform of "Burkhas and prayer mats for all"

Different wrapping, same ultimate goal: the destruction of America (or at least its reduction to some unrecognizable form).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which leaves me to believe that you're either in complete denial or blind as a bat.



Although that statement, if you truly believe that, at least opens up the possibility that you're just a damned fool.

I must say Im a bit surprised that you think ANY American, other than those who are AQ members in sleeper cells here, wants to beat AQ more than any other American. Thats where you gettin' all batty on us.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Different wrapping, same ultimate goal: the destruction of America (or at least its reduction to some unrecognizable form).

I say this with the utmost respect that we have a very good relationship eventhough we disagree wholeheartedly on these things...

and I say this jokingly, but you sir, are an idiot

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I must say Im a bit surprised that you think ANY American, other than those who are AQ members in sleeper cells here, wants to beat AQ more than any other American. Thats where you gettin' all batty on us.

Flasch, I consider the liberal left far greater threat to this nation than AQ or any other external source. The most consequential enemies are within, not without.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

How come its never reported how many insurgents the US kills? We always hear of US military deaths, but not the casualties of whom we fight.

Legacy of Vietnam, probably. McNamara was obsessed with enemy kill counts. Of course, what McNamara missed, was that the VC didn't view the casualty rate as a measurable statistic of performance in the way the US did--the VC in retrospect were probably willing to fight "forever" regardless of casualties. The American public at the time was probably like, "we're getting all of these kills, why isn't it amounting to much in terms of progress?" So, the military has probably wised up and de-emphasized enemy casualty counts (a) because they may foster a false sense of progress and (b) because they may not be relevant to whether a war is being won or lost.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Flasch, I consider anyone left of me a far greater threat to this nation than AQ or any other external source. The most consequential enemies are within, not without.

Fixed that for ya

[JPhillips]

Jon's always ready with the old stabbed in the back routine. Anyone who hasn't read this article should.

http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Fixed that for ya

Not a perfect fix, but not entirely off target either.

[JPhillips]

A man who says that no patriot should attack the war until it is over... is saying no good son should warn his mother of a cliff until she has fallen.

Gilbert K. Chesterton

[Flasch186]

...worthy of italics and an underline....my goodness

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...worthy of italics and an underline....my goodness

I considered BOLD and larger font too, but figured the italics+underline made the point well enough

[JeffW]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A man who says that no patriot should attack the war until it is over... is saying no good son should warn his mother of a cliff until she has fallen.

Gilbert K. Chesterton

Now that is a great metaphor.

[JeffW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well the question to ask is could he be right? I mean the insurgency in Iraq is not dying down, even though a lot of that is nationalist fervor and not necessarily religious. Though it seems in Afghanistan the Taliban has once again become a force to reckon with (they've taken back like half the country). They are getting a ton of recruits.

I think he is right, unfortunately. I don't see how we're going to achieve any kind of lasting victory in this conflict.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I think the lovely partisan point that SFL Cat wants us to argue is that al-Qaeda supposedly got what they wanted by having the Democrats take some power away from Bush.

Hey, that makes me angry, etc. etc. *yawn*

This is very true. You don't think they timed this release by accident do you?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Legacy of Vietnam, probably. McNamara was obsessed with enemy kill counts. Of course, what McNamara missed, was that the VC didn't view the casualty rate as a measurable statistic of performance in the way the US did--the VC in retrospect were probably willing to fight "forever" regardless of casualties. The American public at the time was probably like, "we're getting all of these kills, why isn't it amounting to much in terms of progress?" So, the military has probably wised up and de-emphasized enemy casualty counts (a) because they may foster a false sense of progress and (b) because they may not be relevant to whether a war is being won or lost.

Possibly the most insightful post I have ever read on this forum.

[JPhillips]

Casualty counts are also notoriously unreliable. When fighting an ununiformed enemy how do you measure the number of combatants killed versus non-combatants. I think that's the real problem is that adding up casualty counts makes for an unrealistic number of enemy killed.

That being said, I've heard casualty counts for individual engagements frequently. In Afghanistan in particular it seems we're always killing 50 Taliban soldiers.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The most consequential enemies are within, not without.

Indeed... It's just that I consider those enemies to be the religious right.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Different wrapping, same ultimate goal: the destruction of America (or at least its reduction to some unrecognizable form).

LOL, what a joke. I'd say the Repubs have done exactly what you say the Dems want to do.