Zarqawi Successor Named

The Associated Press is reporting that Abu Hamza al-Muhajer has been named as the new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, succeeding the recently expired Abu Musab al-Zarqawi …

The successor's name . . . was not immediately known and did not appear to be on any U.S. lists of terrorists with rewards on their heads. The name al-Muhajer, Arabic for "immigrant," suggested he was not Iraqi.

(. . .)

"Al-Qaida in Iraq's council has agreed on Sheik Abu Hamza al-Muhajer to be the successor for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the leadership of the organization," said a statement signed by the group on an Islamic militant Web forum where it often posts messages. AP

America's armed forces must be very pleased with the newly released information, considering that the death of Zarqawi left a few thousand pounds of explosives without targets. Congratulations, al-Muhajer. You have just joined the few, the proud, and the most wanted. Your death is imminent and so is my dance on your grave.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 12, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #156916

Well, you did warn us that the Zarqawi death may not be the end of it. It is horrible the way the Iraqis keep having to pay and pay for their history. You and I may disagree on how much a role the US invasion has played in this latest chapter of the book of their misery, but we have to agree that they are not deserving. This is the cradle of civilization, and they are suffering like they have never suffered before. This slowly evolving civil war may blow up in all our faces. I hope not. I hope the Iraqis can find a peaceful way to work out the religious and ethnic differences (mostly religious, as I read it). I’m not sure whether our presence is ameliorating or exacerbating the strife. If I had a crystal ball, I could say. In the face of uncertainty, out of respect for the lives of our troops, I say get out and see what happens. But I don’t think the government is thinking of ever getting out, as indicated by the huge permanent bases being built and the large diplomatic compound installed in Baghdad.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #156936

Iraq is a base for Al Queda Terrorists. We cannot leave Iraq until they are all dead. Iraq-Trained Terrorists are already causing problems in Afghanistan.

We must stay in Iraq.

Posted by: Aldous at June 12, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #156962

We have to recognize that dealing with Al Queda and even the Baath party is like dealing with a bunch of Nazis that time forgot who were able to educate and inculcate their children for generations with their sick and perverse beliefs. I don’t know what can be done for these people who live simply to kill us, destroy modernity, and impose their will on the world.

Posted by: Sick of it all at June 12, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #157025

Until who is all dead, Aldous? Or is that the generic Everybody all dead? If we nuked it we could have some of Red Adair’s offshoots have it producing oil in six months. Then we could claim it as ancestral land.

Posted by: gergle at June 12, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #157037


Iraq has become Al Queda’s Base in the region. Until ALL the Al Queda Terrorists are dead, we cannot leave.

Whatever the price, we must stay.

Posted by: Aldous at June 12, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #157051

Aldous, I give up. I can no longer tell when you’re talking trash and when you’re being serious. I used to think it was all satire, but now, it seems to me you’ve said the same thing too many times for that to be the case.
[Sigh] If America had followed advice like yours in the past, we’d no doubt still be fighting in Vietnam, and the memorial would have had to stretch from DC to San Francisco.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 13, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #157061

Like I said, Zarqawi’s death makes no difference in Iraq. al_Queda represents only about 5% of the violence in Iraq. Their contribution to the violence is larger in impact due to their catalytic effect in fomenting rejection of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

It has been said often and quite astutely that victory in Iraq, meaning, according to Bush, a democratic government capable of sustaining, defending, and promoting peace and productive interaction with the other nations of the world, can only occur when the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people have been won over to that dream of the future.

But, with the tortures in Abu-Ghraib, the killing of women and children in Haditha, and immense personal loss of friends and family by so many Iraqis as a result of US occupation, and the glaring infrastructure deficits in key places in Iraq, winning hearts and minds over to a government backed and bought by the Americans, is not accomplishable.

As long as the US, and Iraqi forces for that matter, are bombing, grenading, and shooting groups of people first, and asking if any are terrorists afterward, victory will not be possible as defined by Pres. Bush. This is the fundamental foundation for the “quagmire” we created in Iraq.

Martial Law is required to keep anarchy and mass massacres from taking place. And those military tactics to keep the government from being overrun prevent America and the Iraqi government from winning the hearts and minds of its citizens, especially those reeling with pain and grief from their personal losses. Bush’s vision of victory in Iraq is not attainable in this manner, if it is atttainable at all.

Which begs the question: How many more Americans must be maimed and die, and how many more 100’s of billions of tax payer dollars must be thrown into this no-win situation in Iraq?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #157070

Actually Adreinne, if we had fought UNRESTRICED WARFARE (it’s an antiquated term, see World War II) in Vietnam, and in the War on Terror, including Iraq, they would have both been over in about two years. If we used our full might in Iraq, it would be bloody awful, but over very quickly. In the end, fewer civilians would die. All we need is the courage to defend ourselves with all our might.

Posted by: David C. at June 13, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #157072

The price of Iraq is small compared with the cost of a 9-11 type event, every six months if we do nothing. Then the left would complain about that.

Posted by: David C. at June 13, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #157087

David C:

The British fought unrestricted warfare in Iraq. The Ottoman Empire fought unrestricted warfare in Iraq.

They failed.

Arabs aren’t Jews. They don’t go to the ovens peacefully. Never have. Never will.

Posted by: Aldous at June 13, 2006 3:39 AM
Comment #157089


I have always believed Operation Iraqi Freedom to be the biggest act of idiocy since the Indians welcomed the Pilgrims on Plymoth Rock.

That said. We are where we are. We cannot leave Iraq. It is as Colin Powell stated, we own the place. Leaving Iraq will put the country at the mercy of its neighbors.

I suppose I could make this a topic in an article: “What Aldous truly Thinks”.


Posted by: Aldous at June 13, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #157094

David C. that is why responsible Americans are calling for border security, something the Republicans still haven’t implemented almost 5 years after 9/11. That is unconscionable as far as I am concerned. Money for marriage amendments but, nothing for border security. One helluva set of priorities.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #157101

Well, David C., it looks like 9/11 partly was an inside job to make the war in Iraq etc. possible.

The war in Iraq was one big mistake. You can’t remove all dictators you don’t like. That just realism you can’t deny.

Posted by: Ouwe at June 13, 2006 5:51 AM
Comment #157103

We need to show Iraqi’s why they need us, instead of showing why they don’t.

People tend to use empirical evidence to form their opinions. IE when Abu Hamza al-Muhajer tells a civilian “join us! Look at all of this death,theft, and persecution inflicted on us by America”, that Iraqi does not have to look far to see this as truth. This gives the terrorist credibility.
When America says now you are free, you need a “dream of the future” we look like assholes. This “dream of the future” can not be created with violence.

It is my opinion that much of this situation could be resolved by providing the common Iraqi a chance to invest in his or her future. They see America blowing up their country and American puppets scheming to enjoy profits by selling out their citizens to America. How many reconstruction efforts are being led by the people of Iraq?

Is this not about economics? Will the reconstruction of Iraq go to American or Iraqi corporations?

We tell them its their country they are fighting for, but they and I dont buy it.

Give these people jobs, and they will have hope. Idle hands…

Posted by: stopculture at June 13, 2006 6:10 AM
Comment #157104

If you look at the history of Iraq, and even Al Qaeda, they were both funded and trained by the CIA. This is fact. Usama Bin Ladin was a tool of the CIA. The U.S funded and provided military equipment to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, a nation which Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda opposed. This pissed them off, as logically it would, and from that day forth Al Qaeda opposed america. But they were a very small group of indivdiduals who whether you agree with their doctrines or not were fighting for something that they believed in and were inacting revenge on the nation taht betrayed them. Ironically we took the origional stance of Al Qaeda by invading Iraq ‘to overthrow Saddam and free the people’ as we were told.

Saddam himself and Al qaeda had no problems with america AT ALL until america effectively screwed them over, economically or imperialistically.

Only when people try to understand the complexities of the issue and the mass hatred americas influence on the world has produced will their ever be a resolve to this conflict. This is not in the best intrest of the government, however, as if the people opposed their decisions they would lose profit and power in a region containing huge amounts of oil.

The constant killing and oprresion caused by the U.S insurgency will only cause more hatred of the U.S and cause more people to fight for their freedom and what they believe (terrorists) just as we are indoctrinated to believe we are fighting for some sort of freedom.

If the U.S had never interfered in the middle east (for purely financial and geopolitical reasons) then their would not be islamic fundamentalists opposing the U.S. It is the U.S fault, and killing more will not solve the problem.

Posted by: The Fly at June 13, 2006 6:19 AM
Comment #157107


You make a very good point and I think that it could be a good start to resolving the conflict in Iraq. The only problem is that such a system would require state interference, which is too ‘socialist’ for this current U.S government and their puppet Iraqi government. It would also reduce the profits for the U.S, which for this current government is not an option.

This U.S government is not in Iraq to free the people, it is in their to make profit and gain control of the oilfields as well as having a large military prescence in the region to instigate fear and therefore control.

Posted by: The Fly at June 13, 2006 6:29 AM
Comment #157109

I reccomend this:

Posted by: The Fly at June 13, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #157110

Here we go againt about Abu’sing…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 6:40 AM
Comment #157185


“Arabs aren’t Jews. They don’t go to the ovens peacefully.”

Horrible, inaccurate analogy. Unless you’re under the impression that the Jews in Europe had an army. It’s a bit hard to fight back when the governments/armies of Europe are shipping you off by the thousands.

You need to think a little harder before you post crap like this, aldous.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 13, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #157325

So now we hunt down Muhajer and eliminate him. And his successor, and his, and his, and ……. Eventually they won’t be able to find anyone that want’s the job.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 13, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #157340

Aldous, what a complete Asinine statement, you just made, I should take offense to it, but in your case, i will try to consider the pathetic Hole of a orifice it came out of.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 13, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #157625

What is like tot be Glosterminn?!

Posted by: plook at June 14, 2006 1:00 PM
Post a comment