«

»

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi Killed?


May 3, 2007 by

Pajamas Media reports that Iraqi authorities said that “the leader of al-Qaeda’s political front organization the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, was killed in the Ghazaliya district in western Baghdad this morning.”

The US army declined to comment thusfar, but U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver did say that ‘a news conference would be held later on Thursday to announce the “success” of an operation against al Qaeda. He stressed that the topic would not be Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.”’

Read more here

Donate to The Moderate Voice

Share This

Related Posts

Sponsors

468 ad

17 Comments

  1. Elrod
    May 3, 2007 | 5:47 am

    They already discussed it. They killed some propaganda minister named Muharib Abdul Latif. According to the

    Shaun Mullen
    May 3, 2007 | 6:38 am

    Pardon the pun, but to beat this particular dead horse again, the death of any insurgent on the lunatic fringe only further unifies other insurgents and enables them to get back to the job of fighting the Americans.

    That is why I was so careful to couch my post the other day on the Al-Masri “death” with ample qualifiers.

  2. DLS
    May 3, 2007 | 7:00 am

    As this event is being predictably discounted by those who don’t want to face anything that could be good for the USA in Iraq, I’ll change the subject somewhat and appeal to the intelligence of readers (if they care to show it): What is the map that has been chosen as the decorative picture for this column by Michael? (This site uses pictures with columns the way flowers are used inside the modern Volkswagen Beetle.)

    Does Michael or anyone else recognize this map, and just what is it? Is it a map showing a likely partition of Iraq into the three areas corresponding to Iraq’s three main religious and ethnic groups, a partition many of us have anticipated and which a number of people not only accept but have recommended? Is this a partition map of some kind? Is it a map showing where each of the three groups has a majority among the population on a province-by-province basis? Is it a map showing where partition would be likely, or even sought? What is it? Where was this map found originally?

  3. casualobserver
    May 3, 2007 | 7:53 am

    The hell if I know………what, the cover jacket of “Arabian Nights” available from Amazon?

  4. AustinRoth
    May 3, 2007 | 7:57 am

    Shaun -

    the death of any insurgent on the lunatic fringe only further unifies other insurgents and enables them to get back to the job of fighting the Americans.

    Man, it is amazing how we can see almost everything in a completely different light.

    What do you suggest we do?

    Love them to death? (Nope, can’t have them DIE! That is bad for America, to have our enemies DIE).

    Joint counseling?

    Appeal to their peaceful nature?

    Reason with them, as they really only want the same things as we do, Death to the Great Satan America?

    Give them everything they ask for, because appeasement is the true road to peace, and once we give them everything they want, they will leave us alone forever?

  5. Rudi
    May 3, 2007 | 7:57 am

    DLS – The picture comes from the actual post/article from PJ’s Media. I’m guessing its origin is from a Sunnis extremeist group. I really loved this propaganda from the article.

    “If the death of al-Masri is [also] confirmed then this is a major blow to al Qaeda in Iraq and a clear sign the organization is losing ground fast. It is akin to taking out Rommel in Europe.” (Strata-Sphere)

    I could see a VC leader or Che’s second-in-command, but using a reference to Rommel makes it time to bring up Goodwins Law. al-Qaeda in Iraq isn’t even worthy of a VC comparison.

  6. Shaun Mullen
    May 3, 2007 | 8:06 am

    AustinRoth:

    I am not suggesting that “we” do anything differently. I am suggesting that nuance-free people like yourself who see the insurgency in strictly black and white try to understand that it is multi-layered. What on its face seems like a victory (and one less insurgent leader is indeed a victory) in the longer run can actually serve to work against “us.”

    Comprende?

  7. casualobserver
    May 3, 2007 | 8:18 am

    Well, I guess there is at least one constructive benefit of this NYT article…..you guys can update your Speaker that AQ is indeed in Iraq…since it is now in the NYT, that should be an unimpeachable source for her.

  8. Elrod
    May 3, 2007 | 8:40 am

    Of course Al Qaeda is in Iraq. The questions are how central AQ is to the insurgency. Are they the genuine leaders of the insurgency? Are they just the most brutal elements of it? Is AQI merely an Iraqi Islamist group using the Al Qaeda brand? Is AQI a marginal element of the insurgency? Does AQI really plan to use Iraq as a springboard for further ambitions in the region and the world like the original Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Or are its goals mostly local in nature? Is AQI a thorn in the eyes of other insurgents because of their different goals? What percentage of the overall insurgency is Al Qaeda? How different is AQI from homegrown Iraqi Islamist insurgent elements? Do the neo-Ba’athist insurgents think they can control AQI? Is their failure to do so a reason they turned against them? What does it mean that the neo-Ba’athist core of the insurgency as rejected an alliance of Al Qaeda? Does it mean neo-Ba’athists have decided to embrace the Shi’ite led Iraqi government? Or does it mean the neo-Ba’athists want to take out Al Qaeda so it can get back to the business of working for Sunni Iraqi domination over Iraq – under neo-Ba’athist terms?

    These are the questions we should be asking.

  9. DLS
    May 3, 2007 | 8:50 am

    Rudi said:

    > I could see a VC leader
    > or Che’s second-in-
    >command, but using a
    > reference to Rommel
    > makes it time to bring
    > up Goodwins Law.

    There’s no such thing in intellectually serious company as “Godwin’s Law.”

    It is a valid historical reference: Rommel was one of the
    top generals fighting the Allies in World War II. (He also was in the inner circle among those who were trying to kill Hitler, and the “take out” analogy can work in more than one way with the man.)

  10. Rudi
    May 3, 2007 | 9:22 am

    DLS – Rommel wasn’t #2 in the military or the Nazis Party. I brought this up because Thomas Sowell pines for the good ole days of a “moral America” and brings up a military coup over at NRO. When nut on the Left or Right bring up a military coup or the Nazis, they are guilty of crimes worse than Goodwin’s Law. Would a Clark, McCaffrey, Powell or Paetraues plot a July 20 bomb or swallow a cyanide pill to save their honr or family, I think not.

    These “perfume generals” and pundits are more concerned with BoD positions and cable gigs than a serious debate. Should have Clinton declared marshall law when McVie and the reactionary militias bombed OKC? What would your side say to that, the reaction would have been alot louder than “wag the dog” during another war and attacks on a CinC.

    Rommel was only alleged to the plot, there is no firm proof of any involvement. If Hitler listened to Rommel and ignored the USSR, PK Dick’s “The Man in the High Castle” wouldn’t be a work of fiction.

  11. DLS
    May 3, 2007 | 10:09 am

    Rudi said:

    > These “perfume generals”
    > and pundits are more
    > concerned with BoD
    > positions and cable gigs

    and book royalties

    > than a serious debate.

    Agreed.

    > If Hitler listened to Rommel
    > and ignored the USSR

    and given Rommel what he wanted, Rommel would have gone beyond Cairo, seized the Middle Eastern oil fields, then could have seized the USSR’s Caucasian oil fields through the back door. They would have had the cheap, plentiful oil. The Allies, not only the USSR, would have been hurt.

  12. Pyst
    May 3, 2007 | 10:37 am

    Ok, I can’t let this one go eventho it’s unimportant.

    Rommel had 300k troops to cover all of N. Africa. There is no way he could have reached the Caucasus without leaving his army severly thin across N. Africa thus making all of those gains impossible.

    alQaeda in Iraq is a tiny group of nuttys that the Iraqi’s (Sunni’s) themselves hate. Killing the highest al Qaeda leader already happened once and it didn’t affect them very much except for a 1-2 month burp in operations. Killing a singular guy in their field operations only stalls them for a bit, then they adapt. So this news makes little difference since they are using Iraq merely as a training ground anyways.

    Leave it to the far right (and I mean far right, not the right) to make this into some kind of big event.

  13. DLS
    May 3, 2007 | 10:43 am

    Rudi said:

    > The picture comes from
    > the actual post/article
    > from PJ’s Media. I’m
    > guessing its origin is
    > from a Sunnis extremeist
    > group.

    “Sunni Islamic State of Iraq” — hmmm, so that’s one group’s idea, at least. (Consider that one future for such a piece of Iraq could be annexation by Saudi Arabia.)

  14. DLS
    May 3, 2007 | 12:41 pm

    > Rommel had 300k troops

    How many were arrayed against the Soviet Union at jump-off?

  15. DLS
    May 3, 2007 | 12:45 pm

    Rudi said:

    > Rommel wasn’t #2 in
    > the military or the Nazis
    > Party.

    Specifically, if the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq were killed it would be the equivalent of some provisional Nazi commander in one of the Eastern European administrative districts — while at the same time, the Soviet Union was seen by many as stronger (the Shiites, al-Sadr, and Iran running that show in much of the territory in question).

  16. Pyst
    May 3, 2007 | 4:44 pm

    “How many were arrayed against the Soviet Union at jump-off?”

    Slightly over 1.5 million infantry, air arm, armour, and support personnel on June 22nd 1941.

    And you think 300k would be able to take, and hold an area 2-3 times larger? If so you are just as convoluted as Rumsfeld was abour Iraq and using 150k troops.