Al-Qaida leaders caught in Iraq

[jbooma]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4043576/

Living proof

of al-Qaida in Iraq

Alleged terrorist leader captured in Thursday raid

By Jim Miklaszewski

Correspondent

NBC News

Updated: 7:22 p.m. ET Jan. 23, 2004Two more Iraqi civilians killed today in a bombing of the Communist Party headquarters in Baghdad. An Iraqi said: “This is a terrorist operation from terrorist people.”

U.S. officials claim they now have living proof that Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network may be behind some of the terrorist attacks in Iraq. The officials tell NBC News U.S. special forces captured a top al-Qaida leader during a raid in Iraq on Thursday.

He’s Hasan Guhl — in the top 20 of al-Qaida leaders. Called “The Gatekeeper,” he’s responsible for providing money, transportation and safe havens for al-Qaida terrorists.

Intelligence sources say Guhl was sent to Iraq by bin Laden or his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri. U.S. officials call Guhl’s capture huge because he could provide critical intelligence on what al-Qaida plans in Iraq.

According to terrorism expert Neil Livingstone, “If Hasan Guhl talks to his interrogators, he’s probably going to have a good idea of how many foreign fighters are in Iraq today, how much money and outside support is coming in.”

In a separate raid last week, U.S. special forces netted another big catch. He’s Husam al Yemeni, also known as “Firas” — No. 2 in the terrorist group Ansar al Islam and suspected of planning

[Ford]

The fact that there's Al Qaeda in Iraq now wouldn't be a surprise to anyone I don't think. There have even been plenty of stories the past week or so about Al Qaeda losing support with alot of arabs because of the number of middle easterners attacks in iraq have been killing and wounding. The question is not whether Al Qaeda has made it's way into Iraq now, along with thousands of other foreign so-called "freedom fighters", it's whether there was any association between them and Saddam prior to the invasion as Bush liked to imply.

[JimboDaMan]

Did you really need this for confirmation? Since the fall of Saddam its been common knowledge Al Qaeda has infiltrated Iraq to attack our troops. Our guys represent a somewhat poorly defensed target of opportunity.

If you're trying to present this as evidence that Osama and Saddam conspired to create the 9-11 attacks, surely GWB must have a job opening for a creative thinker like you.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Did you really need this for confirmation? Since the fall of Saddam its been common knowledge Al Qaeda has infiltrated Iraq to attack our troops. Our guys represent a somewhat poorly defensed target of opportunity.

If you're trying to present this as evidence that Osama and Saddam conspired to create the 9-11 attacks, surely GWB must have a job opening for a creative thinker like you.

Jimbo you need to get a hold of yourself. I just posted it because it is good news. As someone involved with homeland security we are very fortunate that this is happening now.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by jbooma

Jimbo you need to get a hold of yourself. I just posted it because it is good news. As someone involved with homeland security we are very fortunate that this is happening now.

I had thought you commented that this was "living proof" of an Iraq-Al Queda like. On re-reading I see that was just the title of the article. My apologies. :doh:

And I agree, this is good news. I just didn't think there was any question in anyone's mind that the country had been infiltrated by foreign instigators, many of them Al Queda.

[Art]

Jimbo,

I think you should appreciate that the reason the headline is written as such is because, yes, there's a GREAT deal of doubt that there are any Al-Queda people in Iraq. Whether it was before the war or now.

The headline essentially is written as an answer that "Yes, there are Al-Queda people in Iraq."

Reasonable people already knew this and long have. Unfortunately the number of unreasonable people seems to be higher than normal requiring such clarification.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Our guys represent a somewhat poorly defensed target of opportunity.

Speak for yourself. I'll bet the last band of hussain disciples that ran into our boys would beg to differ

[JimboDaMan]

Not meant as a putdown, Sarge. Headlines almost every day attest to the difficulty of keeping our boys safe. I'm sure our fellas do a good job giving 'em somthing to remember us by.

[Art]

Jimbo,

I hope you're kidding. Our soldiers most certainly do not represent a target of opportunity. There's a reason as we've gone more offensive since the end of November that more and more attacks in Iraq are taking out Iraqis. They are easy marks. We are hardened marks. It's difficult to kill us in any numbers and we can kill and capture them in significant numbers.

Anyone can be killed if you are willing to trade your life for the kill. That doesn't mean our guys are easy targets.

[Ax]

Well put me down as one that believe's that there was a connection between Hussien and bin Laden before 9/11. No proof, just a hunch. If not for the "your enemy is my enemy" theory, then for my belief that a terrorist is a terrorist. Regardless of which group they claim alliance to, their common goal seems to be the same. Death to America. So to me, that makes them seperate divisions of the same army. We need to kill them before they kill us.

I have never been in the military so my theories are based on watching too many movies I guess. And maybe one too many games of Axis & Allies, Risk, Pente, and Chess. Not very good either I might add.

I would like to think it is possible that rather than fight the battle on the streets of America, our leaders chose to move the fight. What better place than Iraq. You remove a monster from power , and at the same time draw the terrorists and their resources into a more condensed area where they are easier to locate and destroy. You send a message to the region and the world that we ain't ****footin' around anymore. Of course you can't tell the world that this is your intention because it doesn't sound moral or humane when you know that civilians will certainly die. Better them than us is all I can say. Plus you don't tell the enemy what you have planned either.

BTW - Where are all the human shields at now? Aren't our boys worthy of dying for?

I don't believe the public needs to know everything, as long as things are done in our own best interest. And yes I realize that is a tough thing to know for sure. We all believe what we choose to.

[Art]

Ax,

I think everyone knows there was a tie between Al-Queda and Saddam before 9/11. I don't think the two liked each other, but they were mutually beneficial to each other, talked and provided at least some logisitical support to one another. I do not know that Iraq had anything directly to do with 9/11 so, that's generally why people dismiss the links we know of because of the big one we don't.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Ax

Well put me down as one that believe's that there was a connection between Hussien and bin Laden before 9/11. No proof, just a hunch. If not for the "your enemy is my enemy" theory, then for my belief that a terrorist is a terrorist. Regardless of which group they claim alliance to, their common goal seems to be the same. Death to America. So to me, that makes them seperate divisions of the same army. We need to kill them before they kill us.

I have never been in the military so my theories are based on watching too many movies I guess. And maybe one too many games of Axis & Allies, Risk, Pente, and Chess. Not very good either I might add.

I would like to think it is possible that rather than fight the battle on the streets of America, our leaders chose to move the fight. What better place than Iraq. You remove a monster from power , and at the same time draw the terrorists and their resources into a more condensed area where they are easier to locate and destroy. You send a message to the region and the world that we ain't ****footin' around anymore. Of course you can't tell the world that this is your intention because it doesn't sound moral or humane when you know that civilians will certainly die. Better them than us is all I can say. Plus you don't tell the enemy what you have planned either.

BTW - Where are all the human shields at now? Aren't our boys worthy of dying for?

I don't believe the public needs to know everything, as long as things are done in our own best interest. And yes I realize that is a tough thing to know for sure. We all believe what we choose to.

Ding, ding, ding! Give the man a cigar!

[Ghost of]

Depending what you read, there are more concrete links between Iraq and the first WTC bombing.

one would also think attempting to assassinate a former President, shooting at Allied jets in no fly zones against the cease-fire agreement AND at least until 98, carrying on a weapons program in violation of the agreement would all be grounds for war, but hey...i'm not a moonbat leftist.

I'd also say the mural of a proud Hussein smoking a cigar with the WTC burning in the background in commemoration of the attack would at least establish that hussein and AQ would have a common cause.

It is well-known that since the 90s Hussein had increasingly embraced Islamic rhetoric, even in his Ba'ath party propaganda. Being a megalomaniac he thought he could control or divert AQ, I'm sure, so there's no reason for him to fear aligning with them.

We also know that we killed Palie terrorists that had set up shop in IRaq, and thus that's all the connection we really need.

We're at war on that brand of international terrorism--it need not matter whether it targets France, Britain, Israel, India, the US or whoever.

There's no doubt Hussein gave financial support and provided safehouses and training for terrorists. Whether you want to go the extra step and say he was in bed with AQ is still debatable but there ARE LINKS.

[NavyDave]

Good posts gentlemen

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Ford

The question is not whether Al Qaeda has made it's way into Iraq now, along with thousands of other foreign so-called "freedom fighters", it's whether there was any association between them and Saddam prior to the invasion as Bush liked to imply.

Why? In the end, we have engaged Al Qaeda. If indeed there was no conection between them and Iraq (a dangeous assumption considering how much money Sadam was sending to other terrorist orgs.), then bush is that much smarter for finding a way to rid the world of a dangerous and brutal dictator who we KNOW was giving money to support Hamas and the PLO *AND* draw Al Qaeda out of hiding.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Art

Ax,

I think everyone knows there was a tie between Al-Queda and Saddam before 9/11. I don't think the two liked each other, but they were mutually beneficial to each other, talked and provided at least some logisitical support to one another. I do not know that Iraq had anything directly to do with 9/11 so, that's generally why people dismiss the links we know of because of the big one we don't.

Absolutely correct. What amazes me is that some people actually expect some giant smoking gun to prove the link and assume that the lack of said smoking gun proves there was no link. These people can move hundreds of millions of dollars with no paper trail. I don't think it would be that hard for the two to cooperate with a few verbal agreements and not leave a shread of evidence.

[OURYEAR#56]

Of course.