Senior al-Qaida Leaders Dead; Speculation that Osama's No.2 Was Killed Cont.

Al-Qaida announces deaths of 4 commanders

By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF – 18 minutes ago

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Al-Qaida confirmed in a Web statement Sunday the death of a senior commander known as a top explosives and poisons expert, who is believed to have been killed in a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan last week.

The statement said Abu Khabab al-Masri and three other commanders were killed. It did not give details on when or how they were killed, but Pakistani authorities have said they believe al-Masri died in an American airstrike last Monday on a compound near the Afghan border.

Pakistani officials have said six people were killed in that strike, in the country’s lawless South Waziristan tribal region.

Al-Masri, an Egyptian militant whose real name is Midhat Mursi, had a $5 million bounty on his head from the United States. He is accused of training terrorists to use poisons and explosives, and is believed to have trained suicide bombers who killed 17 American sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

He is also believed to have helped run al-Qaida’s Darunta training camp in eastern Afghanistan, until the camp was abandoned amid the 2001 U.S. invasion of the country. There he is thought to have conducted experiments in chemical and biological weapons, testing materials on dogs.

The al-Qaida statement called al-Masri and the other three slain commanders “a group of heroes” and warned of vengeance for their deaths.

“We tell the enemies of God that God has saved those who will be even more painful for you,” it said. “As Abu Khabab has gone, he left behind, with God’s grace, a generation of faithful students who will make you suffer the worst torture and avenge him and his brothers.”

The statement, whose authenticity could not be independently confirmed, was dated July 30 and signed by al-Qaida’s top Afghan leader, Mustafa Abu al-Yazeed. It was posted on an Islamic militant Web site where al-Qaida usually issues official statements and videos of its leaders.

The statement made no mention of an airstrike killing the four commanders, and did not say how or when they died.

Abu Khabab al-Masri is a pseudonym, meaning “father of the trotting horse, the Egyptian.”

The other three slain leaders also seemed to be Egyptians, since their pseudonyms included the name “al-Masri” — but little is known about them. The statement identified them as Abu Mohammed Ibrahim bin Abi Farag al-Masri, Abdul-Wahab al-Masri and Abu Islam al-Masri.

It gave no details about them, beyond calling Abu Mohammed “the holy warrior sheik and tutor.” The statement said some of their children were killed with them but gave no further details.

The U.S. military, wary of embarrassing its Pakistani allies, has not officially confirmed it carried out the July 28 strike. Two Pakistani intelligence officials and at least one pro-Taliban militant said they believed al-Masri had died in the attack, and an American official in Washington expressed cautious optimism al-Masri was among the dead.

CBS News reported Friday that al-Qaida’s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, was killed or critically injured in the strike. CBS said it had obtained a copy of an intercepted letter dated July 29 from unnamed sources in Pakistan in which a Taliban leader urgently requested a doctor to treat Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant.

A Taliban spokesman, Maulvi Umar, denied the report. Pakistan army and intelligence officials said they had no information that al-Zawahri was hit.

Both bin Laden and al-Zawahri are believed to be hiding in the rugged and lawless tribal regions along the Afghan-Pakistan border. In January, al-Masri was initially reported to have been killed in a similar airstrike said to have been targeting al-Zawahri, but Pakistani officials quickly backed off claims al-Masri was killed.

Hosted by Google
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Good news,yankees wins the war on terrorism:)

Well, they have been on a hot streak lately! But still so many games to go, they haven’t won it all yet.

And what will the complete American victory over Islamic terrorism look like in your opinion? What will be its impact on Mouslems?

In my opinion, there can be no American victory over Islamic terrorism. There can only be a ‘victory’ (if that is the appropriate term) if it is delivered y the islamic world.

There is no complete victory over Islamic terror. But in a sense, it sort of looks like what has gone on in Iraq since the “Surge.” While most Americans fundamentally do not understand the basic counterinsurgency, “hearts and minds” ethos of The Surge, and think it is merely adding a few more US ground forces and somehow vaguely changing tactics. But the asymmetrical tactics also involve a dark side: they are predicated on the wholesale “buying off” of the vastly majority secular Sunni elements that constituted the majority of the insurgency. In a sense the American gov’t is doing now, what could have been done in 2003, and cutting deals with the very people that were bombing and killing US forces in Iraq about a year ago. The Sunnis (who tend to be more secular to begin with) have essentially switched sides with "The Awakening, but this was only possible because in a sense, the Muslims in the Sunni tribal areas learned that the only greater infidel enemy to them than the American forces assisting what is essentially a superficial democratically elected Shiite militia that comprises the “Iraqi Government” was in fact the al-Qaida terrorists themselves.

In fact, it is not so much that the US is winning the dubiously named “War on Terror,” it is that the al-Qaida murdering cunt-bastards are so vile and disgustingly ruthless in murdering wholesale at the Iraqi civilian markets and so wrapped up in summarily executing anyone perceived to defying Islamic Sharia Law, that they have effectively done what extremists have done in every protracted Islamic insurgency. They’ve splintered and lost support of the vast majority who’ve grown weary of watching children being split open and disemboweled in suicide bombings.

I think this was known by the more astute policy wonks as time went on, as this is exactly what happened in Algeria during their civil war, and to a lessor extent. And in Egypt after the assassination of Anwar Sadat - the vast majority of Muslims will not support an orgy of violence nor will they support the central Islamic fundamentalist terror theory of inciting mass rebellion through spasms of nihilistic terror as it is completely counter intuitive to human nature, and fanatics grasping at totalitarian power only alienate the very population they are trying to incite to mass Islamic revolution to sweep them to power.

The only nation Islamic fundamentalists have taken by force is Iran, and then, they only did so because the population was fed up with the corrupt authoritarianism of the Shah. And his SAVAK secret police were the brutal pricks that alienated both the general population, and later important factions of the military – providing a momentum that caused his deposing, which also created a weak replacement gov’t easily goaded to accepting religious authority.

So, in conclusion, the very theory and practice of Islamic fundamentalist extreme terror is self-defeating and cannot sustain itself ultimately…

Sunnis consider Al-Qaida members to be infidels and enemies unlike American troops?

It can be the truth only if the US offer Iraqi Sunnis more power and more money than Al-Qaida. Roughly speaking the US should give Sunni community all the power in Iraq, all the profits from Iraqi oil plus generously donate from the US budget then perhaps the statement “Iraqi Sunnis consider Al-Qaida members to be infidels and enemies” may have something to do with reality.

I think this was known by the more astute policy wonks as time went on, as this is exactly what happened in Algeria during their civil war, and to a lessor extent.

What a pity!

You dislike the democratic winners of the Algerian elections in 1991 and their struggle to defend the democratic choice of voters.

The interior conflict is still under way there even after 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_insurgency_in_Algeria_(2002–present)

The only nation Islamic fundamentalists have taken by force is Iran, and then, they only did so because the population was fed up with the corrupt authoritarianism of the Shah. And his SAVAK secret police were the brutal pricks that alienated both the general population, and later important factions of the military – providing a momentum that caused his deposing, which also created a weak replacement gov’t easily goaded to accepting religious authority.

Islamic fundamentalists have not seized control over many other Islamic countries only because they are prevented to do so by the US that interevene in local affairs. For instance, the Iraqi government openly admits that it won’t be able to stay in power without foreign troops. So the US hinders the natural tendencies in many Islamic states.

So, in conclusion, the very theory and practice of Islamic fundamentalist extreme terror is self-defeating and cannot sustain itself ultimately…

I see the US is ready to sustain its theory and practice of making Mouslems happy with secular and democratic Egyptian-like government existing only due to American military presence or military support.

Could you point out some advantages of the Egyptian government over the Iranian government, please?

Was it not CIA that supported Shah and even tried to save his evil ass in American ambasy during the Iranian “Revolution”?

I can’t agree
USA indeed did a hell of Job to creat, armed and prepeared -Taliban’s Fundamentalists in Afganistan in 1980-yy.
Just becouse it brought profit for them.
So the USA was responsible of creation and supportion of few Radical Islamic fundamentall regimes in regions where they had own interests at its time.
Even in Yugoslavia during the unfair civil war 1992-95 the US supported muslims inspite of their Radical Muslim Ideology.

[QUOTE=Chevan;130765]I can’t agree
USA indeed did a hell of Job to creat, armed and prepeared -Taliban’s Fundamentalists in Afganistan in 1980-yy.

Taliban emerged in the early 1990s. They were not supported by the US, however they could gain some funds and arms poured to Afghanistan from the US in the 1980s

Even in Yugoslavia during the unfair civil war 1992-95 the US supported muslims inspite of their Radical Muslim Ideology.

The government of Bosnian Mouslems were not fundamentalistic, it was secular and the US-orieneted. Islamic fundamentalists aided Bosnian Mouslems but they failed to take power from local secular Bosnian leaders.

The US supports secular EuroIslam that denounces the radical methods of Islamists and is based on the idea that Mouslems can expand their areals, gain more power and fortunes in white regions at the expense of whites and eliminate white nations cooperating with the US, EU, local state authorities in building their multiracial and colour-blind societies.

In fact the real threat for the white nations poses EuroIslam allied with the system of governments and not Islamic fundamentalists. What’s more Islamic fundamentalists can be useful as opponents to EuroIslam and counter-system force.

They consider them baby-killers more apt at killing other, non-Sunni Muslims and in turn causing those Shiites to form death squads to kill their children, than they are at killing US troops …

It can be the truth only if the US offer Iraqi Sunnis more power and more money than Al-Qaida. Roughly speaking the US should give Sunni community all the power in Iraq, all the profits from Iraqi oil plus generously donate from the US budget then perhaps the statement “Iraqi Sunnis consider Al-Qaida members to be infidels and enemies” may have something to do with reality.

Um, actually, it’s more like the fear of Iranian influence. Part of the subtext here is whether the Sunnis prefer that Iraq have an American benefactor, or a Shiite Iranian one…One which would prevent them from even having any sort of political power…

What a pity!

You dislike the democratic winners of the Algerian elections in 1991 and their struggle to defend the democratic choice of voters.

Their is speculation that a peacefully, democratically elected religious movement would have governed somewhat responsibly as they are in Iraq. But certainly the US and European gov’ts at the time said nothing at the military coup…And it was this which contributed to the radical insurgency and bitter terrorist civil war…

Keep in mind, it was the secular, nationalists partisans that went on to form the Algerian Army/political system. And they were equally brutal against their French occupiers with almost no serious religious context…

The interior conflict is still under way there even after 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_insurgency_in_Algeria_(2002–present)

It’s far from what it was. And the main guerrilla terror groups have laid down their arms…

Islamic fundamentalists have not seized control over many other Islamic countries only because they are prevented to do so by the US that interevene in local affairs. For instance, the Iraqi government openly admits that it won’t be able to stay in power without foreign troops. So the US hinders the natural tendencies in many Islamic states.

Can you provide such examples? Yes, for instance, the US did train the Egyptian security forces (as did the Soviets later). But there was no specific emphasis on Islamic extremism at that time, as Sayiid Qutb (the father of modern Islamic fundamentalism, which is a contemporary construction BTW) was not dead yet…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

I see the US is ready to sustain its theory and practice of making Mouslems happy with secular and democratic Egyptian-like government existing only due to American military presence or military support.

But that has never really been theory nor practice…

And there is almost no sustained US military presence in Egypt :confused:

Could you point out some advantages of the Egyptian government over the Iranian government, please?

Well, they dress better and don’t force their women to wear burkas. Other than that, their advantage other than they are tolerant of alcohol and other religions are somewhat limited…

But there has been a quiet liberalization of the political process over the past few years…

It was the CIA that trained his secret police, or SAVAK. But they didn’t specifically “support” him anymore than the KGB supported your bastards…

And one of the reasons the Shah’s fall came as a complete surprise was the US’s overemphasis on satellite intelligence and the fact that SAVAK has somewhat isolated themselves from the US diplomatic mission and hence, the CIA…

Um, really? The Soviet troops and KGB backing a forced, tyrannical Kabul regime on Afghanistan also had much to do with that. And initially the US supported more secular factions. It was the Saudis and the Pakistani ISI that began to filter support to the Wahhabi extremists that were already sniping at their rivals even before the USSR withdrew…