Al-Qaida-linked group claims U.S. deaths By HAMID AHMED, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 23 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida-linked group claimed responsibility Tuesday for double suicide truck bombings that killed nine U.S. paratroopers in the worst attack on American ground forces in Iraq in more than a year, saying it sent "two knights" for the attack.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni militants that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, said it was behind Monday's double attack on a U.S. patrol base in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad — an area that has seen violence spike since American troops surged into the capital to halt violence there.
"The first knight exploded his truck on them and he was followed by his brother in the second truck, exploding it on what remains from the soldiers inside the headquarters," said the statement, posted on a militant Web site.
The victims were all members of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, said a spokesman for the Fort Bragg, N.C.-based unit. It was the highest number of casualties for the division since the war began, Maj. Tom Earnhardt said.
"We are recovering, supporting the families during this time of loss, praying for them and continuing our mission," said Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, the U.S. military spokesman in northern Iraq. "The enemy brings nothing to benefit the people — nothing."
In its Web posting Tuesday, the Islamic State of Iraq, an insurgent umbrella group that includes al-Qaida, put the number of Americans killed at 30.
"Almighty God has guided the soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq to new methods of explosions," it said without elaborating. The message appeared on a Web site that frequently airs communications from militants, but its authenticity could not be independently confirmed.
According to a senior Pentagon official, Monday's attack involved suicide bombers in two large dump trucks. One of the trucks got very close to the Sadah patrol base building, and the other one was further away, the official said, adding that at least some of the casualties may have been caused by the collapse of two walls.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information has not yet been released, also said that 15 of the 20 troops who were injured have returned to duty.
It was single deadliest attack on ground forces since Dec. 1, 2005, when a roadside bomb killed 10 Marines and wounded 11 on a foot patrol near Fallujah. Twelve soldiers died when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Diyala on Jan. 20. The military said it might have been shot down but the investigation is still ongoing.
The use of a suicide bomber in a direct assault against U.S. forces was unusual. Militants, seeking to avoid American firepower, have mostly used hit-and-run ambushes, roadside bombs or mortars on U.S. troops.
On Feb. 19, insurgents struck a U.S. combat post in Tarmiyah, about 30 miles north of Baghdad, killing two soldiers and wounding 17 in what the military called a "coordinated attack." It began with a suicide car bombing followed by gunfire on soldiers pinned down in a former Iraqi police station where fuel storage tanks were set ablaze by the blast.
American troops are facing increasing danger as they step up their presence in outposts and police stations in Baghdad and areas surrounding the city, as part of the security crackdown to which U.S. President George W. Bush has committed an extra 30,000 troops.
Sunni militants are believed to have withdrawn to surrounding areas such as Diyala where they have safe haven. The U.S. command also deployed an extra 700 soldiers to the province last month.
In telephone interviews, residents of the Ameen area south of Baqouba on Tuesday described what they believed was the same attack that killed the nine soldiers.
The residents, spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear for their safety, said gunmen first fired on American snipers at a U.S. base housed in an old Iraqi primary school, then a suicide car bomb rammed a checkpoint at the school's entrance, breaking through blast walls and other fortifications. The first explosion left a path for a second suicide vehicle, a truck, to approach the building, the witnesses said.
Several American soldiers were caught beneath the building as it collapsed in the explosion, the residents said.
Another U.S. soldier was also killed Monday in a roadside bombing in Diyala, the military said — bringing the daily American death toll to 10. A British soldier was also shot to death while on patrol in the southern city of Basra, officials said.
The deaths raised to 85 the number of U.S. service members who died have in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month for American troops since December, when 112 died.
Police in the same province as the attack on the U.S. base said gunmen disguised as Iraqi soldiers killed six Iraqis and burned five homes Tuesday in an unrelated attack. South of the capital, a family of seven was shot to death in their beds at dawn by masked gunmen, neighbors and police said.
On the outskirts of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, a suicide truck bomb exploded at a police checkpoint on the outskirts of Ramadi city on Tuesday, killing 15 people, police said.
And in Baghdad, two bombs went off outside the Iranian Embassy on Tuesday for the second consecutive day. Six civilians were injured, police said. Tension has risen over allegations by the U.S. and some Sunni politicians in Iraq about alleged Iranian interference in the country.
Eighty-three Iraqis were killed or found dead around the country in those attacks and others.
British forces transferred another military base to Iraqi troops in Basra in the country's south, ahead of the planned withdrawal this summer of about half of Britain's contribution to the U.S.-led coalition here. Two other British bases — al-Saie and Shatt al-Arab — were turned over to Iraqi forces in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, in the past month.
The bulk of Britain's about 7,500 soldiers in the city will now operate from a base at Basra's main airport.
In other violence Tuesday, two mortar rounds hit a market in southern Baghdad, killing 10 people and wounding 16 others, including women and children, police said.
So here again we see who is on the side of right and wrong. Today in Iraq, the dealiest day in nearly 5 months, a whole 9 US soldiers died at the hands of two suicide bombers, with dump trucks. In the whole month, only 85 have sadly died. However, while killing those soldiers (as is to be expected in war) the groups have also managed to kill 83 civilians. Does this disgust anyone anymore or is it just common place in this country? These groups killed nearly as many civilians in one day as they have soldiers in a month, and these are the same groups that wish to run the country. So again I ask, is the US at war with Iraq or are these political and religious extremist at war? Who is trying to do the right thing and who is doing the wrong? Absolutely and totally disgusting display of character and respect for life, these people have...
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the
enemy." - George Washington
A Taliban spokesman also said today that the attempted bombing during Dick Cheney's trip to Afghanistan was planned by Bin Laden. Most experts think this is simply hot air, but it does seem Al-Qaeda is trying to stay in the news one way or another.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Iraqis fight as they fight, does it disgust anyone or does not - doesn't really matter for people on the ground.
Countries don't get invaded everyday, when it happens - people react, iraqis reacted the way they do, I expected the resistance. Let's not generalize, there are iraqis who target invaders and avoid civil casualties, if I were iraqi and had the guts and the opportunity I would've made it my duty to kill as many invaders as I can avoiding civil casualties(why would i want to kill my brother anyway?).
Do you expect that anyone on this forum will say that they condone muslims killing muslims? Or do you expect that someone would say that iraqis fighting invaders are wrong and should stop?
This is more about Al-Qaeda than the Iraqi "resistance", whatever that is. Whether these claims of Al-Qaeda affiliation are true or not is another matter. I suppose it doesn't matter really.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
This is more about Al-Qaeda than the Iraqi "resistance", whatever that is. Whether these claims of Al-Qaeda affiliation are true or not is another matter. I suppose it doesn't matter really.
It's about AQ for you maybe, but for iraqi fighters that's very likely just a meaningless word, he picks up a gun or a roadside-bomb or whatever and for him
it's simple, it's about foreigners in uniforms occupying his country and he wants them out and he fights, not for Saddam, not for AQ, he doesn't care about AQ, he doesn't care about politics, he doesn't know,he has no time or interest but he has self-esteem, he doesn't like foreigners running his country.
It's about AQ for you maybe, but for iraqi fighters that's very likely just a meaningless word, he picks up a gun or a roadside-bomb or whatever and for him
it's simple, it's about foreigners in uniforms occupying his country and he wants them out and he fights, not for Saddam, not for AQ, he doesn't care about AQ, he doesn't care about politics, he doesn't know,he has no time or interest but he has self-esteem, he doesn't like foreigners running his country.
Like I said before, this is about claims of Al-Qaeda affiliated suicide bombs. These claims didn't come from President Bush, it came from statements from some group in Iraq.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Perhaps if you tried reading the article in question that fact might become more clear to you. The first sentence sums it up nicely, you don't even need to read the whole thing.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I just wonder, why this article stresses so much on the link with al-qaida. Does this somehow prove that al-qaida is in Iraq after all? Well it proves that al-qaida is there in 2007, but it doesn't prove that they were there in 2002. I mean, the thousands of soldiers in Iraq must have been to al-quada what a lantern is to moth in the dark.
I just wonder, why this article stresses so much on the link with al-qaida. Does this somehow prove that al-qaida is in Iraq after all? Well it proves that al-qaida is there in 2007, but it doesn't prove that they were there in 2002. I mean, the thousands of soldiers in Iraq must have been to al-quada what a lantern is to moth in the dark.
The article is about 2007, not 2002. Anybody that has been paying attention the past few years knows that Al-Qaeda, or at least something calling itself Al-Qaeda, has been in Iraq for awhile now. Remember that guy Zarqawi, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader? The point of the article is that this Al-Qaeda affiliated group is claiming responsibility for some suicide bombings. It doesn't really say anything new, just a bit of news about who is claiming responsibility for suicide attacks.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Yeah I could see it was about 2007. My point was I wonder why they stress it so much. Why does it matter who claims it? A terrorist is a terrorist. It's an idiot who kills a lot of people, does it matter under what group he fights? I mean there's more then one terrorist group right? when it's another group, they never focus on the name, but when it's al-qaida they do. My point was: why? Is there benefit in mentioning al-qaida as much as possible in the same sentence as Iraq? Will it somehow help us forget that America is there without any grounds for invasion in the first place?
People supported a war because of 9/11, 9/11=AQ, ever heard of Bush mentioning WDS nowadays? But AQ in Iraq is being repeated as a mantra, obvious stuff actually... we're doing the right thing, fighting AQ in Iraq, so we were right to go in no matter what, cos AQ is there and bla bla Al-Qaeda bla bla Iraq bla bla Al-Qaeda and so on...
The phrase "believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda" is a new magical phrase like abrakadabra, all kinds of miracles happen when you say that, just say the it and
magically everyone in question is a terrorist and bombs flying in, fascinating stuff, political Copperfields
The purpose of me posting this article was to make a point about what is actually happening in Iraq. Khan, you state that if you were a civilian in Iraq you would kill as many foreign invaders as possible, believe it or not, I can sympathize and understand this and I do not condemn the comment and in fact I applaude it! Now take a look at your brother Abdul Fattah, he states (basically) that Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not in Iraq prior to 2002. Now take a look at the last paragraphs in the article posted, notice that in one day Al-Qaeda and other militant groups have killed as many civilians as they have US soldiers in a month. Does this not strike a chord with you or do you choose to ignore it? AL-QAEDA AND OTHER AFFILIATED GROUPS HAVE KILLED AS MANY CIVLIANS IN 1 DAY AS THEY HAVE TROOPS IN A MONTH (AND THIS IS A DEADLY MONTH FOR TROOPS, THE DEADLIEST IN ALMOST 5 MONTHS!) There now I put it loud and clear for you. Now since this is all established and it is established that Al-Qaeda in Iraq and probably many of their affiliates are also "foreign invaders" would you also attack and kill them with the US forces. By your own logic you should. And if your logic was based on strong intelligence you might even notice that the US isnt in Iraq to cause instability for your country (if you lived there), the US is there to help the civilians, to create stability, to stop the people who are killing 83 or more of your non violent brothers, sisters, children and elderly, indiscriminately every day! So tell me which foreign invader, using this information, would you fight against? You fight with the US against those who are killing everyone they see, and help end the problem and your country will be yours, you fight against the US and win with the people that are killing everyone they see, and your country will never be yours and in fact you will end up with another Saddam in power. I am asking a honest question, which seems right to you?
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the
enemy." - George Washington
Maybe I'd believe these things about Al Qaida if it wasnt invented by the zionists. The zionist neo-cons or right wingers whatever you call the scum in control, came up with this bogey man to scare the western world in particular the british and americans. I have been to many muslim countries no one ever talked about Alqaida in a serious manner it was always jokingly, as we know its all lies. Even in the west people are waking up to this hoax. Now the matter of alqaida in Iraq, well the zionists in control of america along with their pooch bush, blair etc can claim to call anyone alqaida and the world will believe it, that doesnt make it true now does it. Then you have the zionist pooch kept on a tight leash in Pakistan, called Musharaf. All hes interested in is money for his pocket like anyone on the zionist payroll following orders. Does it really make a difference in the end whether its alqaida or iraqi freedom fighters, when the story is always highly distorted and orchestrated.
Maybe I'd believe these things about Al Qaida if it wasnt invented by the zionists. The zionist neo-cons or right wingers whatever you call the scum in control, came up with this bogey man to scare the western world in particular the british and americans. I have been to many muslim countries no one ever talked about Alqaida in a serious manner it was always jokingly, as we know its all lies. Even in the west people are waking up to this hoax. Now the matter of alqaida in Iraq, well the zionists in control of america along with their pooch bush, blair etc can claim to call anyone alqaida and the world will believe it, that doesnt make it true now does it. Then you have the zionist pooch kept on a tight leash in Pakistan, called Musharaf. All hes interested in is money for his pocket like anyone on the zionist payroll following orders. Does it really make a difference in the end whether its alqaida or iraqi freedom fighters, when the story is always highly distorted and orchestrated.
*the post doctor is in*
Sir it seems your post seems to have a case of the 5 D's, dont worry though we see it a lot on this forum, it is a disease that can be cured, you simply have to realize what you have and try to actually find the truth. Let me help clarify this for you, the 5 D's seem to be:
DELLUSIONAL, DECEPTIVE, DISSENT, DENIAL and of couse DUMB
You may be saying now "Why would a I need a doctor for a post", well let me tell you, the post you just made is completely nonsensical and actually makes others sick
Now that you realize the flaws of your post, please try to rectify yourself and come to grips with reality, the sooner you do that the better off mentally you will become, and the less people around you have a chance to become infected!
*the post doctor is out*
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the
enemy." - George Washington
Remember that guy Zarqawi, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader? The point of the article is that this Al-Qaeda affiliated group is claiming responsibility for some suicide bombings. It doesn't really say anything new, just a bit of news about who is claiming responsibility for suicide attacks.
Yes, I remember every word. He pledged allegience to Al Qaeda in the fall of 2004, one and a half years after the U.S. invasion... that's how he got the bucks he needed to arm his men.
Does it really matter? America is making a fortune off of arming countries. Israel is pissed off about us sending Saudi Arabia a very impressive shipment - so much so Bush had to promise Israel will always remain superior in terms of weapons packages and sales.
The main reason for gross profits earned by U.S. weapons sales to all of these countries is... Al Qaeda! To be honest (and blunt), attacks by other insurgent groups are rarely mentioned by name. The only other group to rival in media coverage was the Mahdi Army (another case of arms sales that America lost profit on since they got their weapons from Iran).
I have to agree with Khan-Ghalgha's comment (Sure. Sure. Whatever.). It's a news report about what one group did. Compared to all the other reports about what the U.S. did, and what other fighters did - it has absolutely no meaning or importance.
Al Qaeda joined the Iraqi resistance because the Iraqi fighters invited them.
Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 04-26-2007 at 06:04 PM.
Yes, I remember every word. He pledged allegience to Al Qaeda in the fall of 2004, one and a half years after the U.S. invasion... that's how he got the bucks he needed to arm his men.
Does it really matter? America is making a fortune off of arming countries. Israel is pissed off about us sending Saudi Arabia a very impressive shipment - so much so Bush had to promise Israel will always remain superior in terms of weapons packages and sales.
The main reason for gross profits earned by U.S. weapons sales to all of these countries is... Al Qaeda! To be honest (and blunt), attacks by other insurgent groups are rarely mentioned by name. The only other group to rival in media coverage was the Mahdi Army (another case of arms sales that America lost profit on since they got their weapons from Iran).
I have to agree with Khan-Ghalgha's comment (Sure. Sure. Whatever.). It's a news report about what one group did. Comapared to all the other reports about what the U.S. did, and what other fighters did - it has absolutely no meaning or importance.
Ninth Scribe
So again the point of the article is evaded... Is it of no importance to you that the ones you support kill more civilians in a day than they do troops (or as you would say the enemy) in an entire month? Also where do you get your info on Israel the US and the Saudis? I would like to see a link for that, because I notice many times you seem to come up with things that have no proof other than your word... which by the way doesnt have any importance or meaning, without something to back it at least
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the
enemy." - George Washington
So again the point of the article is evaded... Is it of no importance to you that the ones you support kill more civilians in a day than they do troops (or as you would say the enemy) in an entire month? Also where do you get your info on Israel the US and the Saudis? I would like to see a link for that, because I notice many times you seem to come up with things that have no proof other than your word... which by the way doesnt have any importance or meaning, without something to back it at least
That's a lie! They have not killed more civilians than the Americans. Come to that, their attacks account for 5 percent of the action. I should give you the same rant you gave Noble Muslim... but - blah!
Though supposedly the ‘quickest’ and ‘cleanest’ way to win their war, in reality, according to a Pentagon official, ‘there will not be a safe place in Baghdad’ (Sun-Herald, January 26 2003). The ‘strategic bombing’ of the ‘Shock and Awe’ operation, a nice way of describing causing terror, caused the deaths, as we now know, of thousands of civilians –over 7,000 between March and May 2003.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks