U.S. air strikes 'hit ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi'

Here's where it stands this morning according to the CBC.

"Iraqi officials said Sunday that an airstrike wounded the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Pentagon officials said they had no immediate information on such a strike or al-Baghdadi being wounded.

U.S. military officials did say Saturday that the U.S. conducted a series of airstrikes targeting Islamic State leaders near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-leade ... -1.2829360

Then there's this...

A dozen ISIS fighters killed after chefs infiltrate camp and POISON terrorists' lunch

And that's where the term "eat shit and die asshole" likely originated but, things like this show just how beloved ISIS is even within the terrorist community.

Another pig fucker bites the dust.


No 72 Virgins.

I'm having problems believing this is even a real story...

No "serious" paper even mentions this story and the only source come from the Syrian Free Army and The Times of Iraq... what exactly is "The Times of Iraq"?

I'm having problems believing this is even a real story...

No "serious" paper even mentions this story and the only source come from the Syrian Free Army and The Times of Iraq... what exactly is "The Times of Iraq"?

Murdoch Corp's flagship in the ME>

Still only mentions the Syrian Free Army as the only source... just questionning the source and the lack of coverage.

that was a joke. IT's not as if being a Murdoch paper makes it a paragon of reliability.

So is this story.

I hope they didn't violate his human rights.

The facts are not verified in either story yet, but even as a rumor the Baghdadi one is news. The poisoned jihadis one is just posted for the smiles and to show such stories are swirling about.

Today some were saying ISIS leader Apu Pakr Baghedi might be dead. Who knows on that one, but Iraqi officials seem pretty sure the ISIS second in command might have bit the big one (and I don't mean Poo Pakr's).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html

No, He has the right to remain silent.

No, He has the right to remain silent.
Besides, he'd have to be a human in order for his human rights to be violated in the first place.