Saturday, August 20, 2011

AQI killed Iraqis to avenge Usama bin Laden

That must make a lot of sense to them!

NYT: "One of the most powerful insurgent groups in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, released a statement on Saturday, warning that it had launched a 100-attack campaign to exact revenge for the United States’ killing of Osama bin Laden.

The statement did not explicitly refer to a string of over 40 attacks on Monday that killed more than 90 people and was the most violent day in Iraq this year. But the statement said the campaign had begun in the middle of this month — Monday was Aug. 15 — and would continue until there had been 100 attacks.

“We began this stage with an invasion we have called the battle of revenge for Sheik Osama bin Laden and other senior leaders,” said a statement posted on the Internet.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has long claimed an affiliation to Bin Laden’s group, and has clearly been inspired by it. Bin Laden died in May in an American raid on his compound in Pakistan."


David All said...

Yea, well I gave up on trying to make sense of Al Qaeda and its allies some time ago. They just like to murder people, the more undefended the better, any time and any place the b--tards can!

Pisa said...

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but to me it looks like Iran might be behind it, to take pressure off their syrian buddy.

C.H. said...

I have been thinking the same thing, Pisa...although its certainly a stretch, as I said in an earlier thread.

C.H. said...

I have been thinking the same thing, Pisa...although its certainly a stretch, as I said in an earlier thread.

Pisa said...

As usual, the NYT is masterfully avoiding the dreaded T word.

They call Breivik a terrorist, but not Al-Qaeda. None of the articles on Iraq I've been able to read (until the site unexpectedly asked me to log in) even mentions the word "terror", or "terrorist".

What's the difference between a white psychopat murdering his own people in Norway and brown psychopats murdering their own people in Iraq?

Is there a difference? The NYT seems to think so.

Muhannad said...

I've seen the NYT call the armed groups in Iraq "home-grown insurgents" sometimes.

But they describe Al Qaeda like this:

"Updated: June 30, 2011

Al Qaeda is a terrorist network of Islamic extremists created by Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011, in a firefight with United States forces in Pakistan. President Obama announced his death late on what in Washington was still the night of May 1.

On June 16, an online statement announced that Ayman al-Zawahri, the group's longtime No. 2, was taking command of the international terrorist organization. The delay in announcing his succession led some counterterrorism analysts to see signs of a power struggle at the top of the group."

madtom said...

Mojo does not like the idea that Iraq's violence is coming from the outside. He thinks it's all internal

I guess no one told AQM

madtom said...

I do find one thing curious, the Syrian people don't seem to know how to set IED's, you have to Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon or Libya for a public well practiced in the art of IEd's and the like. From what I can see sitting here looks like the average Syrian has an good alibi

madtom said...

As strange as it might seem the Iraqis may be guilty in the eyes of AQM. Iraq's elections, flawed as they may have been and the resulting government as bad as it my be, were still the most open and free elections throughout the M.E. and the closest thing to a democracy anywhere in the region.

madtom said...

"Libyans wanted to enjoy a peaceful Ramadan," he said. "Instead they have been made into refugees. What are we? Palestinians?

Cant you just feel the love

Iraqi Mojo said...

"Mojo does not like the idea that Iraq's violence is coming from the outside. He thinks it's all internal"

How did you come to that conclusion?

madtom said...

You have said so every time I've asked you.
Have you changed you mind, or is there something different about these attacks?

Iraqi Mojo said...

I've never said it's all internal. In the beginning, many jihadists were non-Iraqis. In my sidebar, under "Key Posts and Articles" I've linked to articles explaining the non-Iraqi contribution:

2005: At least half of suicide bombers were Saudi

2005: KSA judge encourages Saudis to fight in Iraq

2007: Half of foreign insurgents are Saudi

2007: Suicide bombers head to Iraq from Damascus

Iraqi Mojo said...

But these days, most of the foreign fighters are dead, in prison, or out of Iraq. Thanksfully.

Iraqi Mojo said...

This NYT article describes Al Qaeda in Iraq:

"The Sunni Awakening movement began in western Anbar Province in 2006 as the violence in Iraq peaked and Sunni tribal leaders began feeling pressure from all sides. The tribal leaders there decided to stop fighting the American forces in their region and instead cooperate with them in taking on Al Qaeda in Iraq, a largely homegrown group that is believed to have foreign leadership. The movement then spread around the country as a means of Sunni self-preservation."

Anonymous said...

Cmon guys, really?

Bin laden died in Tora Bora in 2001. Seriously, do you really have to be that naive?

Dolly said...

No, he got killed in 2011 as confirmed by Ayman Dhawahiri for instance

madtom said...

as a question to the group. Does anyone think the Arab spring would have been possible with Saddam in power in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan? If possible, what would have happen in Iraq when the Arab spring came there?

Iraqi Mojo said...

I think it would have been possible if the rebels had serious help from the US, NATO, or the UN. Even then it would have been very difficult in Iraq. At a minimum, enforcing a no-fly zone, one that would have included helicopters, would have been necessary.

Muhannad said...

'Libya's rebels began as an ill-equipped, poorly trained amateur force. But they got a huge boost from those NATO air strikes and surveillance. CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports on what went right for the rebels.
The big question after the rebels' shockingly quick advance of the past days is how did something that started so badly end up going so well.

In the war's early stages, the "Rebel Rabble" earned their nickname by charging forward to take ground they would quickly lose through bad organization and bad weapons.

NATO's entry into the conflict may have taken out Muammar Qaddafi's armored units and control centers. But in close fighting, the rebels still couldn't call in the airstrikes they needed.

"What's lacking?" Phillips asked Ahmed Shebani, a member of the opposition, just last month.

"Lacking is precision NATO strikes," he said'