Posted on 03/04/2007 12:12:42 PM PST by jmc1969
Indeed that is great news, I hope it is true, we will know in the next 24 hours.
Damn I forgot all about the missing defense minister.
I'd forgotten too until FARS pinged me. Thanks FARs. Mark for later read and information and theories.
Big tome
B U M P
Excellent news, thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the 'good news' ping FARS.
September 19, 2006
Witnesses in Ramadi, the capital of western Anbar province, said gunmen dressed in white marched through the city as mosque loudspeakers broadcast the statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, a Sunni militant group led by Al Qaida in Iraq.
"We are from Mujahideen Shura Council and our Amir [Prince] is Abu Omar Al Baghdadi. God willing we will set the law of Sharia here and we will fight the Americans," said a man who identified himself as Abu Harith, a Mujahideen field leader.
"We have announced the Islamic state. Ramadi is part of it. Our state will comprise all the Sunni provinces of Iraq," he told Reuters by telephone. Abu Harith said the state would be headed by Amir Abu Omar Al Baghdadi, a little-known militant. It would include Sunni areas of Baghdad, and the provinces of Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salaheddin, Nineveh and parts of Babil and Wasit.
Big plans are coming unstuck all over...
http://www.nysun.com/article/48291
Blackout of the Press By NIBRAS KAZIMI February 8, 2007
Abu Omar al-Baghdadi made his grand entrance onto the jihadist stage on October 12, 2006, and since then he's delivered two very important speeches — the more recent one came out last week — and has taken credit for much of the spectacular outbreaks of violence in Iraq of late, yet he still can't get his name in print on the pages of the New York Times. Why are the editors and reporters of that paper not telling their readers anything about Iraq's top terrorist?
Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is Al Qaeda's guy in Iraq, and nowadays, the Sunni insurgency is being whittled down to Al Qaeda's activity in Iraq. It's that simple, and he's that important.
So why isn't the Times writing that? I think the answer has something to do with what seems, to my eyes, to be a determined campaign to keep the American people from knowing the nature of the enemy in Iraq because identifying this enemy as Al Qaeda casts the debate about the war in a whole different light.
Here the timeline behind al-Baghdadi's emergence on the scene:
— On October 17, 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi changes the name of his organization, Monotheism and Jihad, to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia after swearing fealty to the mother Al Qaeda organization under Osama bin Laden.
— On January 15, 2006, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia expands its writ by forming an umbrella organization called the Shura Council of the Mujaheddin, whereby Zarqawi cedes the public face of Al Qaeda to an Iraqi figurehead, Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, but maintains full authority over the new entity.
— On June 7, 2006, Zarqawi is killed, and he's succeeded shortly thereafter by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.
— On October 12, 2006, Al Qaeda further expands on the Shura Council of the Mujaheddin by forming yet a larger umbrella group, the Islamic State of Iraq. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, not to be confused with the aforementioned Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, is declared emir, or ruler, of this "state."
— On November 10, 2006, al-Muhajir, speaking as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia's chief, pledges his allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and to al-Baghdadi as its head, and makes a point of highlighting al-Baghdadi's pedigree: He is of the tribe of Quraish, a usual prerequisite for a would-be caliph.
— On December 22, 2006, Al-Baghdadi gives his first speech, addressing Muslims everywhere. The presenter introduces him as the "Prince of the Faithful"—a title usually reserved for caliphs.
Thus, there is no entity that describes itself as Al Qaeda operating in Iraq anymore. There's only the Islamic State of Iraq. As head of that state, al-Baghdadi is a big deal. And it doesn't stop there, for all the hints being dropped about the caliphate seem to indicate that al-Baghdadi is Al Qaeda's candidate for that job.
But it's not only the anti-war crowd in the press that doesn't want the American people to know that America's soldiers are fighting an Al Qaeda-led insurgency in Iraq. The Central Intelligence Agency and most of America's intelligence community don't want to do that either, according to a major scoop reported by the Sun's own Eli Lake on Monday. Mr. Lake writes that the CIA and others are still concluding that the insurgency is, for the most part, Baathist in nature, while those actually battling the insurgency on the ground, namely the intelligence arms of the Army and the Marines, are contesting that assertion claiming instead that the Sunni insurgency is largely driven by Al Qaeda.
The generic term "insurgent" — preferred by most press organs — is bland and insipid, while the term Al Qaeda may strike an emotional note with many Americans. It is one thing for congressional Democrats and presidential hopefuls to pledge withdrawing the American military from a melee with insurgents, and a whole different thing for them to sound a retreat in the face of an Al Qaeda offensive.
And an Al Qaeda offensive is exactly what al-Baghdadi promises in his February 2 speech, posted as an audio file on several jihadist Web sites, and which may be read in full at my blog, talismangate.blogspot.com. Al-Baghdadi says that his Dignity Plan is supposed to counter President Bush's "surge" and that it will only end when Mr. Bush signs a treaty of surrender. And what would this surrender look like? Al-Baghdadi spelled out the terms in an earlier speech: "We order you to withdraw your forces immediately. But the withdrawal must be via troop transport trucks and passenger planes whereby each soldier is allowed to carry his own weapon only. They may not withdraw any of the heavy military equipment and the military bases must be handed over to the mujaheddin of the Islamic State and the duration of the withdrawal may not exceed a month."
Not very favorable terms, but I wonder whether some in the Senate would go for it anyway: Too many in the congressional chamber seem to think that surrender is the only option left.
This is a shame, since if one listens closely to what al-Baghdadi was saying last week, one would be able to detect a note of palpable concern over the "surge," as well as hints of jihadist-on-jihadist strife. In other words, Al Qaeda seems to be on a losing streak. Al-Baghdadi was reduced to cajoling his fighters to stand fast in front of the Americans and warned them against laying down their weapons until the battle is over. He cited a particular verse from the Koran that was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad after the early Muslims were roundly defeated in battle, as a means of telling the Al Qaeda rank and file that the setbacks they've endured lately are only temporary.
Al-Baghdadi also feels compelled to tell his fighters to take it easy with the other jihadist groups, which have yet to join the Islamic State of Iraq, while at the same time telling the holdouts that their obstinacy smells of sedition. There are other reports that insurgents are clashing among themselves as Al Qaeda imposes its hegemony over one and all, to the point that al-Baghdadi is compelled to tell his guys that "I am certain that the sincere monotheists are surely coming" our way "eventually, so be tender, be tender."
And in yet another gambit that smacks of desperation, al-Baghdadi tries to rile up the French and the Chinese against American global hegemony, and addresses those nations as "the freemen of the world." Not only that, but he adopts a scolding tone with North Korea, essentially invoking the "sharing is caring" line, when he says, "And let North Korea know that it owes its nuclear tests to the mujaheddin in Iraq." Translation: " Al Qaeda's actions distracted America from dealing with your evil, and the least you can do is share a nuclear device with us."
But why would the Times want to tell its readers that Al Qaeda is petitioning Kim Jong Il for a nuclear weapon? I guess I'm mistaken in thinking that this is newsworthy. Wait, I just realized something: No, this is indeed important, and the American public needs to know.
Mr. Kazimi can be reached at nibraska@yahoo.com.
Adding to your link 41, 4butnomorethan30characters.
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/index.cfm?page=masri
For what it's worth
From the Fourth Rail
Report: Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of Islamic State of Iraq, captured
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/03/report_abu_omar_alba.php
Unconfirmed report indicates Bagdadi captured in Salahadin province
Iraqi security forces are reporting that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaeda's political front organization the Islamic State of Iraq, has been captured in the northern city of Duluiya in Salahadin province, according to Deutsche Presse-Agentur. The report has not been confirmed by the U.S. military at this time. The mid February news that Abu Musab al-Masri was wounded and subsequently captured by Iraqi security forces turned out to be a false report from the Interior Ministry. However today's report of al-Baghdadi's capture was issued by the Salahadin provincial administration.
Al-Baghdadi's real name is reported as Muharib Mohammed Abdullah, and he is “a former legal expert from the city of Balad.” Baghdadi's capture would be a largely symbolic victory, as al-Masri is the real power behind al-Qaeda and its Islamic State.
However, his arrest would signal that U.S. and Iraqi intelligence is penetrating al-Qaeda in Iraq's security. And Baghdadi may have information on the whereabouts of senior or mid-level al-Qaeda leaders and members of the Islamic State's Shura (or execute council).
Al-Qaeda established the Islamic State in Iraq in October of 2006 to put an Iraqi face on al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq and unite the Sunni disparate elements of the insurgency. Al-Qaeda claims the Islamic State of Iraq is comprised of “Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din, Ninawa, and in other parts of the governorate of Babel.” The declaration of the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq followed the creation of the "Mutayibeen Coalition," which includes six Anbar tribes, as well as three smaller insurgent groups.
But not all Sunni insurgent groups have united under the banner of al-Qaeda's Islamic State. Sunni tribes and elements of insurgent groups such as the 1920s Revolution Brigade and the Islamic Army in Iraq in Anbar province have formed the Anbar Salvation Council and have fought pitched battles against al-Qaeda, the most recent in Amiriya.
Now that is some good stuff!
THanks, good stuff.
If he did, he's now wondering which of his underlings would most like to see him gone
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
