Reports That ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Severely Injured

Reports are coming out of Iraq that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of the new Islamic State, has been severely injured by Iraqi forces in a battle near Qaim in Anbar. There are also reports he has been taken to Syria. Al Sumaria news says an Iraqi Parliament official confirmed this. Here's a photo allegedly of the injured al-Baghdadi.

But there are also reports this happened Wednesday, and ISIS tweets say al-Baghdadi led the prayers at a mosque in Mosul Friday. Supposedly, ISIS cut off all cell phone activity in the area so no one could disclose his presence. [Added: Here's a video of al-Baghdadi leading the prayers in Mosul...after the Iraqis claim he was injured in the blast.]

Nothing is confirmed at this hour, and while there are many reports about this on Twitter and in Middle Eastern media, none seem to be from ISIS supporters.

If he does die, who will take his place? [More...]

The Daily Star in Lebanon reported a helicopter struck a house in Qaim killing several militants who were holding a meeting inside. Was one of them al-Baghdadi?
Al-Nuaman also says a helicopter gunship hit a house in the town of Qaim near the Syrian border where a gathering of the jihadi group's local leaders was taking place. He says there were several casualties, but did not have a concrete figure. An official in the Anbar province operational command confirmed the Qaim airstrike.
I think it's curious that the ISIS tweeters are not addressing this, even though several have been online and posting within the past few hours. Are they waiting for instructions from IS Central on how to respond? Is there an IS Central without al-Baghdadi?

Here's a screengrab of al-Baghdadi leading the prayers at the Mosul mosque yesterday.

< 2013 Wiretap Report Released | ISIS Releases Glossy New Recruitment Magazine >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, someone will take his (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    place and then he'll have to be killed.

    That should be a blow to the ISIS initiative (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jack203 on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    I don't see how the Sunni areas will be able to be retaken by the Iraqi Shiite government though .  Not by force anyway.  Political compromise or if no compromise they will be controlled by Sunni tribal leaders.

    For all the armchair generals clamoring and whining for Obama to "do something". He has been handling this correctly.

    Repeat after me neocons.  The less we are involved in Sunni-Shiite conflict...the better.  We could be  one side one week, another side the next week, and the only thing we'll be making sure is that both sides despise us as much as they hate each other.

    Repeat after me (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    Al Qaeda is Sunni.

    And (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Alawites in Syria and Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon are Shias.

    Al Qaeda is Sunni but so are the royal families in various countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc).

    So who are you proposing we fight for and against?
    It is best to not get involved in another dumb war.

    President Reagan made a dumb mistake in the 1980s. He got involved in Lebanon's civil war. After the Beirut barracks bombing, he turned tail in the Middle East but ordered the invasion of Grenada. We can learn our lessons from the dumb mistakes that President Reagan and Bush made and not repeat them.  


    Kill them....kill them all!!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:16:24 PM EST
    While I hide under my bed over here :)

    And let... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:22:49 PM EST
    ...Allah sort them out?

    : - )

    (a sentiment that actually originated with an alleged Christian)


    And who was that alleged Christian?? (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:35:20 PM EST
    Google for... (none / 0) (#24)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 10:10:51 PM EST
    ..."The Lord will know his own"

    Intersting (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:54:56 AM EST
    I always enjoy seeing the Crusades being brought into a conversation regarding modern day Muslim terrorists.

    Why is that? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 06:34:16 AM EST
    You asked the question ... you got the answer.  

    Lots of Christians adopting that old phrase today.  


    Well let me see (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    Let's hide behind things that happened a thousand years or so ago instead of what's happening now.

    No one is "hiding" (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    You asked about the origin of the phrase ... It originated a long time ago, but many "Christians" (like you) subscribe to it today.

    And all caused by Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    making the dumb mistake of dumping the Shah and allow Iran to become a terrorist state.

    BTW - Do you begin to see how silly it is to try and defend Obama's mistakes as being caused by Bush etc etc....

    I mean if we want to, let's blame the Soviets for trying to takeover Iran which led to that overthrow and the establishment of the Shah..

    And if the Jews hadn't established Israel then everything would be peachy keen...

    Of course it was the Nazis who killed the Jews and made them flee back to their homeland..

    But if France had responded quickly to Hitler's first move then WWII wouldn't have happened...

    So there you go. Obama is not responsible because it was the French who screwed the pouch.

    Whew... Glad to get that settled.

    But wait! If the French hadn't been so hard on the Germans after WWI Germany's economy wouldn't have collapsed and Hitler wouldn't have came forward.

    Of course WWI was caused by a Austrian terrorist killing some royal folks... THAT'S IT! IT WAS AUSTRIA'S FAULT!!!!!


    Repeat after me, Jim (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    President Reagan stupidly got America involved in Lebanon's civil war but turned tail after the Beirut barracks attack. He also made deals with the Khomeini regime in Iran.

    President Reagan's actions enabled two things. It showed the Khomeini regime that America was ready to get involved in dumb wars but would high tail it quickly if casualties started to mount. President Reagans action also emboldened the Khomeini regime and made them believe that irrespective of rhetoric, American Presidents were willing to make secret deals with rulers that they dubbed terrorists (eg: Reagan and Iran-Contra).

    And President Bush did another dumb thing from a realpolitik standpoint. Removal of Saddam Hussein enabled Iran to take more control of the Middle East.

    The Middle East fiasco is largely President Reagan and Bush's fault. You cannot blame President Carter for Iran while ignoring the elephant in the room-President Reagan's policies in the Middle East. Atleast President Carter got the Camp David accord signed!


    Jim this is off topic (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    the topic is whether al-Baghdadi was injured or killed. Please don't hijack the thread, your comments and responses to them will be deleted.

    Okay, didn't mean to wander (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 05:49:00 PM EST
    but you might read comment #2 to see where it came from.

    And here I thought the Iranian people (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    dumped the Shah..

    We couldn't make a go of it in 'Nam, yet we were going to prop up a massively unpopular, ruthless dictator against a well armed, motivated opposition, in a country three times the size of Vietnam with rugged, mountainous terrain and a supply line to the SU.

    Go back that The Way Things Oughta' Be land fantasyland Jim, and let some rational adults discuss actual history.


    OMG you are such Robert Plant (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    So all Sunni are Al Qaeda?

    At this point... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    ...I'm not convinced that all Al Qaeda are Al Qaeda.

    Sometimes you can't even tell the players with a program.


    I agree to a large degree (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    But even if you can't see the numbers you can see the uniforms.



    I can't decide if you are a Robert Plant (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    or a Robertless wonder

    Propaganda is big with this group (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    And because their leader was apparently a sort of jihad expert at tradecraft, he could be dead for a long time and only his closest commanders know.  IS can likely run for awhile without his presence.  Because they are so good using propaganda though, I would not believe their claim that the video in Mosul was after he was wounded.  I am inclined to think he is more likely dead because they played that silly card...that was not so smart for a bunch of thusfar successful strategists.

    Losing such a charismatic and strong leader though almost always has a huge impact on an organization like IS.  If he is no longer a player, and if Iraq will finally seat Sunnis at the table, maybe the flames can be cooled, for the sake of their children if nothing else!

    And if Baghdadi is dead or wounded so badly he is out, yeah....the Iraqi Army did it, all by themselves.  I'll go with that story, because any other story is counterproductive.

    Depending on how much time (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    Whoever organized this attack felt like they had also Jeralyn, they may have been tracking him and waiting for him to meet with some of his top people before they made their move.

    Certain forces of a certain nation I am familiar with, if they have the time they take such time when hunting terrorists.

    IS may have lost significant leadership in the fight.


    He looks like he might be bleeding (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    Out of his nose too in the tweet photo, suffering from the aftermath of over pressurization and a blast wave?  It was how Zarqawi died, bled to death internally and other internal organ damage after an air strike.  Some are still alive after such a strike, but die soon after with very few externally discernible physical injuries.

    "If he does die... (none / 0) (#11)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    ...who will take his place?"

    Anyone know if these guys have ever seen "Spartacus"?

    I have read they have some (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    Bada$$ Chechens that joined them.  Would the region accept a Chechen leader?

    A week or two ago I posted... (none / 0) (#25)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 10:18:54 PM EST
    ...a link around here somewhere to an article from somewhere that pretty much claimed that it was Chechens who started ISIS, but I'm too lazy to go back and search for it.

    P.S. Does Baghdadi have a (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 05:34:20 PM EST
    Lee Press On Beard?

    Inquiring minds and all that :)

    For some reason... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    ...the word "Chia" comes to mind.

    It grows inches by (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:51:47 AM EST
    The hour :)