It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq Captures No. 2 Al Qaeda Boss

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The Iraqi government is reporting that they have captured Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, who is known to be the second in command for Al Qaeda in Iraq. His detainment, which has taken place in the last 72-hours, has lead to the arrest of atleast 11 more important members of that terror group. The news of this high-profile capture comes at a time when the Bush administration needs all the good news it can get.
 



hosted.ap.org
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Authorities on Sunday announced the capture of al-Qaida in Iraq's No. 2 leader, accusing him of "brutal and merciless" terror operations, including the bombing of a Shiite shrine that touched off the sectarian bloodletting pushing Iraq toward civil war.

Iraq's national security adviser said Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was arrested a few days ago as he hid in a residential building southwest of Baqouba.

The arrest has left al-Qaida in Iraq suffering a "serious leadership crisis," national security adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said. "Our troops have dealt fatal and painful blows to this organization."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The news of al-Saeedi's capture is slow to get out in the United States because it's our Labor Day weekend. Even so, Bush administration officials are scrambling to make the most of it. Say what you like about the war in Iraq, but this really is good news. The many arrests which have resulted from this high-profile capture may deal a serious blow to the insurgency that is holding up the reconstruction efforts which so many Iraqis are passionate about. The story has only recently broken, so I am sure we have a lot more to learn in the days ahead.

Related News Links:
www.canada.com
mensnewsdaily.com
www.themoderatevoice.com




posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
The arrest of Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi or what ever his name may turn out to be a moral booster for those on the home front and Coalition military personal but in reality the areest will make little or no differnce to the security situation in Iraq.

There will be someone who will take Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi place and the other 11 or so insurgent groups in Iraq havnt been effected.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
It's tempting to be pessimistic about the war in Iraq. How-ever, it's worth noting that guerilla cells are not easily formed, nor ar ethey easily repaired once compromised. As it turns out, the human factor makes most covert organizations that rely on asymertrical warfare rather fragile.

Insurgent groups do not transmit institutional memory very well. This is due in large part to their secretive nature. Because the individual cells don't exchange in-depth information with each other, they don't pass along what they've learned. The group does not pass on what it learns until its senior members are sent out to create new cells.

The arrest of senior commanders deals a serious blow to any covert group. In the long run, insurgents lose combat experience faster than they gain it. As a practical matter, time is NOT on the side of any insurgency that is being countered by government forces. If they do not score their victories early, they ususually don't see very many at all.

That's what makes this event so important to the Big Picture. If the Iraqis themselves really did catch this guy, you know they didn't hook him up wot a blanket and a lawyer as we are wont to do in the West. If he was captured by Iraqi army forces, he was given just two choices...one of which involved being shot or being decapitated.

We should wait and see how this pans out. I don't think it's a turning point, but it will go down in history as a significatn event that contributed to the failure of the Al Qaeda funded portion of this insurgency.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The arrest of senior commanders deals a serious blow to any covert group. In the long run, insurgents lose combat experience faster than they gain it. As a practical matter, time is NOT on the side of any insurgency that is being countered by government forces. If they do not score their victories early, they ususually don't see very many at all.


The problem is that Al Qaeda will have plently of people with combat experience to take the place of any number of number of leaders. The same gose for the other insurgent groups. You have to put aside the convental warfare type of thinking when it comes to counter insurgency warfare. Often the insurgents win if a battle is fought and large amounts of firepower has damaged property.



That's what makes this event so important to the Big Picture. If the Iraqis themselves really did catch this guy, you know they didn't hook him up wot a blanket and a lawyer as we are wont to do in the West. If he was captured by Iraqi army forces, he was given just two choices...one of which involved being shot or being decapitated.


Im not quite sure what your saying there but IMH an airstrike would have been a better idea then aresting Jumaa Farid.
Given the current security situation in Iraq is it really a good idea to keep insurgents and there leaders behind bars ?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
They're catching the bad guys. That's what needs to be done. I don't know why anyone would complain about that.

Radical Islam is the most virulent threat to the free world ever.

There is only one way to arrest that threat and that is to take the war to them.

It seems to me that that's what's happening.

We have two choices--win this war or live as slaves.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
They're catching the bad guys. That's what needs to be done. I don't know why anyone would complain about that.


No one is complaing the point is we have to be realistic killing one ant dosnt wipe the colony out.



Radical Islam is the most virulent threat to the free world ever.


Few would disagree with that statement.



There is only one way to arrest that threat and that is to take the war to them.


That is a gross oversimplication I expect that from a Hollywood movie not from people dealing with real life probelms.



We have two choices--win this war or live as slaves.


Unless we smarten up quick were going to lose since 9-11 little thought has gone into the war and were paying for it now. The western world is no more secure then it was before 9-11.


[edit on 4-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11


There is only one way to arrest that threat and that is to take the war to them.


That is a gross oversimplication I expect that from a Hollywood movie not from people dealing with real life probelms.


It's called a generalization and of course it's over simplified. What did you want me to do? Write a policy manual.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The problem is that Al Qaeda will have plently of people with combat experience to take the place of any number of number of leaders. The same gose for the other insurgent groups. You have to put aside the convental warfare type of thinking when it comes to counter insurgency warfare. Often the insurgents win if a battle is fought and large amounts of firepower has damaged property.


As a student of asymetrical warfare, I'm well versed in the nuts and bolts of every day cell operations. The average indiginous cell takes eight months to form. This assumes that the leadership is indiginous. A disrupted cell can take as many as 24 months to reconstitute.

Because access to information is restricted within the cell, loss of leaders almost always translates to permanent loss of experience and intell. Al Qaeda ioerative s who enter Irag to take the place of fallen cell members will do so slowly, and over long periods of time because it might take them six months or more to know that any given cell is disrupted and in need of reinforcements.

Experienced cell commanders know better than to talk with anyone if they don't have to. Even if they watch CNN, they still can't know precisely which of their cells was a casualty due to the arrest of al-Aseedi. Guerilla fighting has been made glamorous by books and film, but it's really a very down and dirty business. Betrayal is possible at every turn. Newcomers are simly not allowed unless the need is real and their credentials are impeccable. that's because fifty percent of most newcomers to a cell will betray it.

These are the logistical facts of life for insurgents, and it has been that way fro the last two thousand years of recorded military history. Time is never on their side.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
GradyPhilpott of course I didnt want you to write a policy manual.
Its just that since the War on Terror began people havnt delt with anything but gross generalizations. If were going to win the War logical thought process and careful planning is requried we must put our emotions aside.

Justin Oldham in this case time is on the side of the insurgents the longer they fight the lower American opinion polls go and the chances of a US withdrawl increase. I never said that Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi replacement would come from Iraq in fact I think that it is quite likely that he will come from another country.

I doubt that it would take 24 months to repair any damage that was done. Due to the legacy of thousands of years of tribal warfare you would expect that the insurgents would be well versed in maintaing there cell and trying to avoid betrayal as you described in your above post.

The coalition would also foster the idea that a tip off came from the inside every time an insurgent leader is caught or killed this would be an attempted to unsettle the enemy.


[edit on 4-9-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 4-9-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
While checking the news I cam across this. Thought you might like how it relates to the origional story.






Authorities found the tortured, blindfolded bodies of 33 men scattered across Baghdad Monday, while the U.S.-led coalition said eight troops had died - a day after Iraq said the capture of a top terror suspect would reduce violence.

In Baghdad, assailants kidnapped a popular soccer star, while a security crackdown in the capital expanded a security operation into the upscale Mansour neighborhood.

An al-Qaida-affiliated group dismissed the government's claim that the organization's second most important leader had been arrested, suggesting the man was not a senior figure and denying that the group had suffered a significant blow.


sorce materal



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana
AP



I wonder if this is the same Abu Rana that CSMonitor interviewed back in 2004?


On another note, al qaeda is not the only problem in Iraq. However some of the violence between factions is instigated/propogated via al queda actions. Just like they have tried to do here with their latest video.

So removing one of the cells should help reduce the amount of highly visible kidnappings beheadings and car bombings, and hopefully also reduce a bit of the tension between the other factions, given a little time for it to calm down.


[edit on 9/4/06 by makeitso]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
If U.S. and Iraqi forces can make 3-5 more takedowns like this one, we should see some positive results over the next six months. Even so, there are some real dangers that we should be aware of.

It's a known fact that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are making their way to Lebanon to assist Hezbollah. If we somehow manage to catch IRG advisors inside the borders of Iraq, we should be ready for the fallout. Tension in the region will escalate, and Western leaders will be tasked with coming up with something stronger than words to answer the threat.

Brand-new cells, created outside the country, could enter Iraq and hide out in remote areas. Venturing out only to do their...business...they could melt away and be harder to find because they don't interact much withh the locals.

These are just two of the many possible threat we still face. If the Unitd States can actually do what Bush says, and stay the course, we may see Iraqi public opinion side with us as the new year starts.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Here's my last post on this subject. As I write this, it is starting to become obvious to those who study politics that the Bush administration is now fishing for a way out of Iraq. Although administration officials are talking about raising troop levels, it now seems clear to anyone with a nose for these things that the sectarian situation in Iraq is out of hand. This means that Mr. Bush is now looking toward his legacy. It's quite possible that the powers beyind the throne are now suggesting to him that we leave before there's a Democrat in the White House.

No matter what you think about this issue, it's time to put your thoughts in towods and send them off to the people in power. the lack of leadership being show at this time makes it clear that htey are confused about what to do. We can actually lend them a hand by making phone calls, sending letters, and button-holing them when we see our leaders on the street. If enough of us speak up,they will get hte idea...one way or another.

You've seen a lot on the ATS boards about how your vote no longer matters. Why not put that to the test? When this November rolls around, go and vote. Those of you who are the most pessimistic among us could set a good example by using your vote, even if you don't think it matters. The last thing the folks in D.C. are expecting is YOU...no matter what you think.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
You've seen a lot on the ATS boards about how your vote no longer matters. Why not put that to the test? When this November rolls around, go and vote. Those of you who are the most pessimistic among us could set a good example by using your vote, even if you don't think it matters. The last thing the folks in D.C. are expecting is YOU...no matter what you think.


Justin,
Some very good words indeed. In adation to voteing you could also make a difference by calling your representivities and telling them what you think on the issues. Even when you are pessimistic I think that is a good way to sometimes make a difference also.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
It’s laughable at best.

The contemporary terrorist, is one of the internet generation. All it takes now in Iraq is one or two people, who can gain access to the internet to research how to make bombs, incendiary devices and actually be willing to attack the forces who are in occupation/Iraqi Government. Every time they capture and kill such a person, all we ever hear is how much of a crucial blow it is. However, I can think of about 8 of these people in the last 18months if not more.

It is doubtful this man had any involvement in the day to day running of terrorist cells. They’re based on secrecy, based on making sure as few people know about them as possible. This is how such cells function, no one person in such an organisation can have too much power and knowledge otherwise it leaves them vulnerable if that person dies. Even Bin Laden is now expendable, nothing more than a figure head, nothing more than a pretty boy for the cameras.

These newcomers never have to meet anyone. They can easily kill themselves in the name of any terrorist group they decide. I bet a vast percentage of the terrorist attacks are made by people who are sick of the occupation of Iraq. They are probably not educated by a terrorist group but instead downloaded the information.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join