AQ says US right about Iran

[Trish]

Report: Al Qaeda-Linked Militant Says Iran Supports Sunni Fighters in Iraq

Wednesday, May 07, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

KUWAIT CITY — A Sunni fundamentalist from Kuwait who has been linked by the United Nations and the United States to Al Qaeda, said in an interview published Wednesday that Iran is supporting Sunni Arab insurgents fighting American troops in Iraq.
The comments by Mubarak al-Bathali came just days after reports surfaced here that three Kuwaitis recently carried out suicide bombings in Iraq, including a Kuwaiti who was a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner. Kuwaiti authorities have not confirmed those reports.
The U.S. has accused Iran — which is predominantly Shiite like Iraq — of supporting Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran denies this and blames the U.S. troops presence for the violence in Iraq.
The accusations by al-Bathali were a rare occasion that a Sunni fundamentalist claimed Tehran also backs Sunni extremists, linked to Al Qaeda. In the battlefields of Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are archenemies.
In the interview in Kuwaiti Al-Qabas daily, al-Bathali said that Tehran is supplying Al Qaeda fighters and other Jihad movements in Iraq with "weapons and money" and claimed he has personally sent fighters to Iraq by way of Syria.
Al-Bathali alleged that Iran's motivation for backing both the Sunnis and Shiites opposed to Washington, was because Tehran is eager to "place hurdles in front of America" so that the U.S. would be "too busy to fight" Iran. He also said Iran facilitates the entry of fighters into Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Any person who wants Jihad (holy war), is of age and responsible and honest in his intent, I send him and prepare him," al-Bathali said. "I guarantee passage into Syria and reception there, until he finds himself in Iraq carrying a weapon and fighting."
Al-Bathali, whose remarks were unusually bold, said he has also sent Kuwaitis to fight in Kosovo and Chechnya.
He gave no evidence of his claims and provided no further details. But he mentioned his son, Abdel Rahman, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and sentenced there to 10 years for working with Al Qaeda.
"If I had sons other than Abdel Rahman, I would have sent them to fight the Americans until doomsday," he said in the interview. Al-Bathali could not be reached by The Associated Press for comment.
In January, the U.N. Security Council added al-Bathali and two other Kuwaitis to a list of about 480 individuals and businesses linked to Al Qaeda and its sponsor the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The U.S. Treasury Department has said al-Bathali is a fundraiser and recruiter for Usama bin Laden's terror network and has facilitated travel for extremists planning to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Al-Bathali told Al-Qabas that he doesn't send fighters to Iraq through the Iraq-Kuwait border because the area beyond the boundary in southern Iraq is controlled by "Shiites and British forces." Instead, the "easiest borders have been the Syrian and Saudi," he said.
The U.S. has chastised Syria for allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq. Syria denies the charges and claims it's impossible to seal its border completely.
Small oil-rich Kuwait has been a major Washington ally since the U.S.-led 1991 Gulf War that liberated it from a seven-month Iraqi occupation. However, some of its fundamentalist Muslims disapprove of U.S. forces being based in their country or any other in the area.
Media reports have said that three Kuwaitis, including Abdullah al-Ajmi who was released from the U.S. detention facility at Guantnamo Bay in 2005, carried out suicide bombings in Iraq recently. The families of al-Ajmi and another alleged bomber, Bader al-Harbi, said they received anonymous calls informing them the men died in Iraq.
Al-Bathali told Al-Qabas the three left Kuwait "only after a martyrdom operation was prepared for them in agreement with coordinators" in Iraq. He did not say if he had a role in sending them himself.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354383,00.html



So - now we have AQ saying that Iran is aiding and abetting the killing of Americans in Iraq, inteferring in Iraq. I wonder if now the Bush administration and the Pentagon are more believable?

[Elrathin]

AQ main goal is destabilization of the region to the point of the U.S. looking like aggressors. What better way to accomplish that then for the U.S. to attack Iran and create even MORE of a recruiting tool for AQ.

By leaving Iraq, we will be removing the U.S. presence there and AQ will effectively get their asses kicked out by the Iraqis. AQ is taking advantage of the "My enemies enemy is my friend" with the Iraqis because there are many Iraqis that hate us. By leaving Iraq, we remove that portion of it and the Iraqis can unite to kick out AQ then. The U.S. is the main recruiting tool of AQ.

War supporters are playing right into AQ hands IMO.

[Trish]

AQ main goal is destabilization of the region to the point of the U.S. looking like aggressors. What better way to accomplish that then for the U.S. to attack Iran and create even MORE of a recruiting tool for AQ.

By leaving Iraq, we will be removing the U.S. presence there and AQ will effectively get their asses kicked out by the Iraqis. AQ is taking advantage of the "My enemies enemy is my friend" with the Iraqis because there are many Iraqis that hate us. By leaving Iraq, we remove that portion of it and the Iraqis can unite to kick out AQ then. The U.S. is the main recruiting tool of AQ.

War supporters are playing right into AQ hands IMO.

I don't think the US is going to attack Iran even if it is confirmed absolutely that Iran is inteferring in Iraq. We don't want another war anywhere unless we're absolutely forced into it. I DO think that if it is confirmed, that it will give the US, Britain, etc. leverage - leverage to keep us OUT of war with Iran. I heard someone say once that diplomacy is the art of saying "Good doggie, good doggie", long enough to give you time to find a big rock. Having absolute confirmation of what we've known or suspected all along will give us that rock. That rock can be used hopefully to force Iran to reconsider its nuclear ambitions.

[lieexposer]

Forget about Al Queda, they're not important anymore or the US would be in Afghanistan fighting them there. Iraq is what's important because of the need to consolidate control over Iraq's oil resources and thusly control over ME oil markets. I would think that more of you people would be 'getting it' now with all the recent news of China competing for oil markets in a world which now doesn't have enogh oil coming out of the ground to satisfy every country's demands.

Nope, too many still think this is about fighting terrorism.

You will start getting it in a couple of months because this awakening is coming very fast now with the rest of the world's governments. Of course the US government has known this going back to before the first war against Iraq.

[lieexposer]

I don't think the US is going to attack Iran even if it is confirmed absolutely that Iran is inteferring in Iraq. We don't want another war anywhere unless we're absolutely forced into it. I DO think that if it is confirmed, that it will give the US, Britain, etc. leverage - leverage to keep us OUT of war with Iran. I heard someone say once that diplomacy is the art of saying "Good doggie, good doggie", long enough to give you time to find a big rock. Having absolute confirmation of what we've known or suspected all along will give us that rock. That rock can be used hopefully to force Iran to reconsider its nuclear ambitions.

Desperation on the part of the US could lead to a tactical nuclear strike against Iran. The table is perhaps being set for that now with another US carrier going to the Persian Gulf. Desperation in the sense that much more pressure is applied to the US military forces in Iraq by Iranians and their sympathizers. New IED's which have recently been proven to be capable of penetrating the US' best armoured vehicles is not a good sign. Yet Iran probalby thinks it's safe to apply more pressure now because the US is even ignoring the Al Queda successes in Afghanistan because it can't leave Iraq.

All that is needed now is for the Bush regime to fabricate an incident or promote an incident of several Americans being killed with Iranian efforts to justify the only quick way of winning a war and convincing the American people it is necessary.

Nuclear. It's almost certain but will depend on how much the Iranians want to make the US suffer in Iraq. At the moment they are keeping it controlled and minimal in the effort to not push the US hand too much.

And then of course if the Bush regime can justify a nuclear solution it will add to their popularity immensely and also help McCain a lot.

[apdst]

AQ main goal is destabilization of the region to the point of the U.S. looking like aggressors. What better way to accomplish that then for the U.S. to attack Iran and create even MORE of a recruiting tool for AQ.

Lame argument. The longer US troops stay in the ME, the more AQs die. The last thing that AQ wants is for The United States to stay.

[Elrathin]

Lame argument. The longer US troops stay in the ME, the more AQs die. The last thing that AQ wants is for The United States to stay.

AQ has a great membership going thanks to the U.S. They love what we have done for their recruitment. What AQ wants is the same thing conservatives and war supporters want, to attack Iran and give them even more recruits.

The lame argument is staying in Iraq.

[PatrickHenry]

So - now we have AQ saying that Iran is aiding and abetting the killing of Americans in Iraq, inteferring in Iraq. I wonder if now the Bush administration and the Pentagon are more believable?

You have got to be kidding!

AlQaeda is the devil, the enemy, the monster, the boogyman, Freddy Kruger, the most evil force on the face of the Earth...the org that's worth it to spend trillions of dollars to fight...

But, when they deliver intel, you wholeheartedly buy their line of BS?

Damn! That's what I call gullibility!

And who has more interest in the events of Iraq than the next door neighbor?

Uncle Sam sends hundreds of thousands of troops to the other side of the earth to occupy Iraq, but you say Iran is the meddler? :ponder:

[apdst]

AQ has a great membership going thanks to the U.S.

There casualty rate has skyrocketed, too. AQ and it's affiliates have lost 40,000 fighters in Iraq, alone. That's not counting casualties in Afghanistan. Their casualties weren't near that high before we started fighting them.

attack Iran and give them even more recruits.

And give us more targets to terminate. The only way to kill the extremists is to draw them out of hiding so we can engage them.

[Elrathin]

There casualty rate has skyrocketed, too. AQ and it's affiliates have lost 40,000 fighters in Iraq, alone. That's not counting casualties in Afghanistan. Their casualties weren't near that high before we started fighting them.

And more and more are joining with each day we stay there. Who cares how many we are killing when more and more are being recruited.

STAY THE COURSE IS NOT WORKING and it is doing nothing but pissing off the Iraqis.


And give us more targets to terminate. The only way to kill the extremists is to draw them out of hiding so we can engage them.

Does no good when we are creating more than killing. That is evident by the amount we have killed and there is still more and more.

Again the lame argument is staying when it isn't working.

[apdst]

And more and more are joining with each day we stay there.

The more that join, the more we kill. Sooner or later, the recruits will stop coming. The German Army inducted fresh recruits all the way though 1945. Should we have stopped fighting them, too?

STAY THE COURSE IS NOT WORKING and it is doing nothing but pissing off the Iraqis.

What's pissing off the Iraqis, is having their own people bomb them.

Does no good when we are creating more than killing. That is evident by the amount we have killed and there is still more and more.

We just keep killing them 'til they stop coming. Simple.

[Elrathin]

Like I said apdst people are getting tired of us being there and when we create more than we kill that is DEFEATING the purpose of the war on terror.

The purpose is to fight and get rid of AQ, not help them recruit and create more.

You say it is better in their backyard than ours, but right now the Iraqis are tired of us fighting it in theirs.

[apdst]

The purpose is to fight and get rid of AQ, not help them recruit and create more.

There's no way, that we were going to fight AQ without swelling their ranks. You thought AQ wasn't going to go on a massive recruting campaign once they were fully engaged with us? It's just common sense.

[lieexposer]

Al Queda! The indoctrination job is done on you Americans because you can't see the forest for the trees.

Staying the course in Iraq is definitely the answer. This is not going to change and so winning the war is the only option. If it gets too costly the US is going to win it in a big hurry and that will be by massive convincing force.

Nuclear.

I'll predict now that within one month we will be able to say with certainty whether or not that will happen because it's all going to depend on Iran's involvement to a level the US can't tolerate any more.

[lily]

[QUOTE=Trish;175272]
The accusations by al-Bathali were a rare occasion that a Sunni fundamentalist claimed Tehran also backs Sunni extremists, linked to Al Qaeda. In the battlefields of Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are archenemies.
Fox wants me to believe that after thousands of years of hating each other, after years of fighting a civil war in Iraq........that Sunni and Shiites are now coming together??? Amazing.

[lily]

And give us more targets to terminate. The only way to kill the extremists is to draw them out of hiding so we can engage them.

So what you are saying is that American soldiers are just bait?

[Trish]

You have got to be kidding!

AlQaeda is the devil, the enemy, the monster, the boogyman, Freddy Kruger, the most evil force on the face of the Earth...the org that's worth it to spend trillions of dollars to fight...

But, when they deliver intel, you wholeheartedly buy their line of BS?

Damn! That's what I call gullibility!

And who has more interest in the events of Iraq than the next door neighbor?

Uncle Sam sends hundreds of thousands of troops to the other side of the earth to occupy Iraq, but you say Iran is the meddler? :ponder:

When you go off on a tangent, PH, you go way off! I'm not among those that have accused the WH and the Pentagon of fabricating the intelligence that Iran was arming insurgents to kill Americans.

I'm one of those other gullible fools - one of the ones that don't see America or America's troops as evil. Sorry.

[Trish]

[quote]
Fox wants me to believe that after thousands of years of hating each other, after years of fighting a civil war in Iraq........that Sunni and Shiites are now coming together??? Amazing.

Sorry, lily - it's an AP story - not a Fox News story. Fox News published it but did not produce it.

[apdst]

So what you are saying is that American soldiers are just bait?

If you want to look at it that way. But, the bait usually doesn't have a 10 to 1 kill ratio...LOL!

[lily]

[quote=lily;175401]

Sorry, lily - it's an AP story - not a Fox News story. Fox News published it but did not produce it.

Thank you........let me correct that........AP wants me to believe that after thousands of years of hating each other, after years of fighting a civil war in Iraq........that Sunni and Shiites are now coming together??? Amazing.

[PatrickHenry]

When you go off on a tangent, PH, you go way off! I'm not among those that have accused the WH and the Pentagon of fabricating the intelligence that Iran was arming insurgents to kill Americans.

I'm one of those other gullible fools - one of the ones that don't see America or America's troops as evil. Sorry.I had you right!

You believe AlQaeda's BS just because it coincides with the administration's BS...

Heh. :grrrr:

[spirobulldog08]

And give us more targets to terminate. The only way to kill the extremists is to draw them out of hiding so we can engage them.

I never really thought of it that way but it's a great point. I don't like war, I want out of the war but I want to stay long enough that we don't have to go back in 5 years after we've been woken up to the terrorists again. We've made them so mad now that it's rather necessary to keep them at bay and, as you mentioned, try to find out who they are by drawing them out and eliminating them too. Great point!

[spirobulldog08]

Al Queda! The indoctrination job is done on you Americans because you can't see the forest for the trees.

Staying the course in Iraq is definitely the answer. This is not going to change and so winning the war is the only option. If it gets too costly the US is going to win it in a big hurry and that will be by massive convincing force.

Nuclear.

I'll predict now that within one month we will be able to say with certainty whether or not that will happen because it's all going to depend on Iran's involvement to a level the US can't tolerate any more.


Once again, great point. I don't agree with wanting it to become nuclear, because then you open up the gates of hell for lots of different reasons, but you are right, there is no choice but to win here.

[PatrickHenry]

...you are right, there is no choice but to win here.
Then join up, sport. You're young enuff... :evil:

[jafar00]

Go ahead. Bomb Iran. Your Al Qaeda masters have ordered you to do it. They want to be rid of their mortal enemies, the shia and at the same time get US troops bogged down in yet another warfront which could cause the collapse of already overstretched US forces.

[preservanation]

We've turned the corner on Iraq and our WOT.
The enemy is getting nervous.
They would like nothing better than have us skulk away like we did in Somalia.
Don't listen to them.
March on.
Iran's day will come as well.
America is the solution, not the problem.
This has always been the case in our history and it's no different now.

[PostmodernProphet]

Apdst: AQ and it's affiliates have lost 40,000 fighters in Iraq, alonethat would be good news if true, but do you have a source?....

[jafar00]

that would be good news if true, but do you have a source?....

If old women and 4 year old kids are counted as Al Qaeda, they can make it true. I don't think there has been 40,000 AQ ever. If there was, they did a pretty poor job. 40,000 terrorists should have been able to do far more damage.

[apdst]

that would be good news if true, but do you have a source?....

I'm basing my numbers on the fact that everytime we hear about enemy casualties, the kill ratio in every case is 10 of theirs for 1 of ours, sometimes more than 10 of theres. During the battle of Najaf, our troops enjoyed an incredible 30 to 1 kill ratio.

When you consider that we've lost around 4 thousand KIAs in Iraq, and our kill ratio is never any lower than 10 to 1, it only stands to reason that the enemy has lost 40,000 fighters. 40,000 is a conservative estimate; I'm sure the real numbers are much higher.

Here is an article from USA Today that claims 19,000 enemy casualties through 2007. Let's just say that the article is right and I'm wrong, that's still a 5 to 1 kill ratio and that ain't bad.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-26-insurgents_N.htm

The enemy lost more fighters in '07 than we have in the whole five years we've been in Iraq. Going by those numbers, they AREN'T kicking our butts, and I don't care what anyone says.

40,000 terrorists should have been able to do far more damage.

It's not surprising when you consider that the terrorists are going up against the finest fighting force in the history of The World. The members if The United States armed forces are superior to the enemy, in every way.

[lieexposer]

Once again, great point. I don't agree with wanting it to become nuclear, because then you open up the gates of hell for lots of different reasons, but you are right, there is no choice but to win here.

Undoubtedly it would have many very bad implications if it went nuclear and among them would be ensuring that the US would get the same back sooner or later. However I think the US is going to get that in a revenge attack anyway. If you correctly understand the reason why the war needs to be brought to fruition then you will also understand that Obama is not going to end it and neither is Hillary. But it's great politics for the Dems to use at this point in time because of the unpopularity of the war.

The US needs to assert control over the ME oil markets of course because of the ongoing demand for oil which is going to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. This is the correct sense in which to be thinking when we understand that the Iraq war is only for oil. Of course from my POV as a Canadian it should be ended now because it is morallt wrong and illegal in the sense that it is being waged on false pretenses.

[lily]

We've turned the corner on Iraq and our WOT.

Pres....I've hard that we've turned a corner so many times, it reminds me on an old man, driving with his right turn signal on for miles.



This article saying that AQ is helping the Sunni is about the same as the articles that say AQ want us to elect Obama.....propoganda, at it's finest.:thumbsup:

[apdst]

I've hard that we've turned a corner so many times

There are thousands, even hundreds of thousands of corners in a war. This is real life, not Hollywood.

[spirobulldog08]

If you correctly understand the reason why the war needs to be brought to fruition then you will also understand that Obama is not going to end it and neither is Hillary. But it's great politics for the Dems to use at this point in time because of the unpopularity of the war.



I completely agree with that statement. The generals in Iraq will never let them do it quietly. If the generals are against it and make it public enough, Clinton or Obama will commit political suicide by doing it anyway.

[lily]

The generals in Iraq will never let them do it quietly. If the generals are against it and make it public enough, Clinton or Obama will commit political suicide by doing it anyway.

Well, I may be wrong.........but those generals serve at the pleasure of the President.......and Bush won't be predisent when someone else is elected...he's fired generals for speaking out, so I doubt these generals will be there to do much after January.

We'll be getting a whole new fresh outlook on this war.

[apdst]

I doubt these generals will be there to do much after January.

If Obama has a brain, at all, he won't fire the guys that have been, "on the ground"...not right away, anyhow. I imagine he's smart enough not to replace the veteran commanders with officers whose expertise on Iraq stems from the fact that they can find Iraq on a map.

If he cuts Patreaus loose--I speciafially point to Patreaus, because of his success in Iraq--and things go to shit, Obama might as well enjoy his first, and only term as president.

Ultimately, I doubt Obama will do anything dramatic initially. I doubt he'll make any dramtic changes within 18 months. He's much smarter than that.

[MCTHOUSAND]

I had you right!

You believe AlQaeda's BS just because it coincides with the administration's BS...

Heh. :grrrr:

Whose BS do you believe?

[spirobulldog08]

Well hopefully we don't have to take the chance on whether Obama is smart enough or not and we put McCain in office so we KNOW what he will do ;)

[apdst]

Well hopefully we don't have to take the chance on whether Obama is smart enough or not and we put McCain in office so we KNOW what he will do

I share your concern, but I feel purdy sure that Obama is going to be our next prez.

[MCTHOUSAND]

I share your concern, but I feel purdy sure that Obama is going to be our next prez.

If we survived Jimmy Carter, we can probaby survive Obama. Don't see how he could be any more incompetent than that fool was and is.

[lily]

If Obama has a brain, at all, he won't fire the guys that have been, "on the ground"...not right away, anyhow. I imagine he's smart enough not to replace the veteran commanders with officers whose expertise on Iraq stems from the fact that they can find Iraq on a map.

If he cuts Patreaus loose--I speciafially point to Patreaus, because of his success in Iraq--and things go to shit, Obama might as well enjoy his first, and only term as president.

Ultimately, I doubt Obama will do anything dramatic initially. I doubt he'll make any dramtic changes within 18 months. He's much smarter than that.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, that's why they are elected in November and don't go into office until January........so they can get the people they want to replace, up to date with those that are going to replace them.

[apdst]

If we survived Jimmy Carter, we can probaby survive Obama.

We're Americans, of course we'll survive. But, damn, the suffering we'll do in the mean time.

so they can get the people they want to replace, up to date with those that are going to replace them.

So, you think it's plausible to take someone, who's never commanded troops in Iraq--possibly no other combat theater--and get him up to speed on 5 years of operations in two and a half months? Lily, you strike me as being alot smarter than that.

[lily]

We're Americans, of course we'll survive. But, damn, the suffering we'll do in the mean time.


Yep, you're right, we're Americans we'll survive......we survived 7 years of Bush.


So, you think it's plausible to take someone, who's never commanded troops in Iraq--possibly no other combat theater--and get him up to speed on 5 years of operations in two and a half months? Lily, you strike me as being alot smarter than that.

Yes, I sure do.......if he does his job right......seems they get every new administration up to date every election year, not only that, but generals in this administration have been replaced quite often.......oh wait.......you think Obama is going to replace generals with privates, is that it??

[apdst]

seems they get every new administration up to date every election year

This is the first time in nearly 40 years that we've changed presidents during a time of war, too. It's not your garden variety change of command.

but generals in this administration have been replaced quite often

No more than any other administration, and everytime the successors had already been commanding in theater. Again, I don't think Obama is actually stupid enough to replace a veteran commander with an FNG.