Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ayman al-Zawahiri might be dead

  1. Jan 13, 2006 #1
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1504096
    This good news now Osama bin laden's second in comand officer and his doctor is(might be) dead
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 13, 2006 #2
    Again?......
     
  4. Jan 14, 2006 #3

    Art

    User Avatar

    Apparently not. Just another 18 innocent civilians dead... Killed by that well known state sponsored international terrorist group the CIA. :rolleyes:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4612400.stm
     
  5. Jan 14, 2006 #4
    CIA airstrike missed again. What a surprise. How many Canadians died in Afghanastan because of an overzealous U.S. pilot? Now how many civilians died?
     
  6. Jan 15, 2006 #5
    I never herd of anything about candians dieing in afghanstain.
     
  7. Jan 15, 2006 #6
  8. Jan 15, 2006 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, I guess this just proves the old adage - "never invite a terrorist to dinner: even if he doesn't show up, you still may end up dead."
     
  9. Jan 15, 2006 #8
    Also, don't be a kid living within 200 meters of a terrorist sympathizer. Anything that happens is your own fault.
     
  10. Jan 15, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Correction: your parents' fault.
     
  11. Jan 15, 2006 #10

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Seems to be more the case of recklessness or perhaps callous disregard for human life on the part of the Bush Administration and perhaps the US military.

    Pakistanis Rail Against Deadly Strike

     
  12. Jan 16, 2006 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not following - it says that as many as 11 of them were foreigners and al-Zawahri sent a bunch of his personnel to the dinner party instead of going himself. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-15-pakistan-attack_x.htm
    I don't know for sure that all 17 killed were at the dinner-party, but anyone killed at the dinner party were either terrorists, terrorist sympathizers (which is just another word for "accomplices") or their children.

    Such a strike - even if the primary target, al-Zawahri, wasn't killed, is still both justified and considered a success.

    For the children, there is a special place in hell for their parents - right next to the parents of the Columbine shooters ('I didn't know he had all those guns...' :uhh: ) and the parents of those two teenage twin girls who are looking for a career in racist folk-music.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2006
  13. Jan 16, 2006 #12
    Even if individual members of groups are killed, this does not mean that the group will be disbanded or stop operating. It is short-sighted to analyse conflict situations in terms of leaders and to believe that the murder of specific leaders will end this conflict: dead leaders will likely be replaced by others.
     
  14. Jan 16, 2006 #13
    ha.. UBL has not been in control of any terror activities in quite some time, and prior to that, he really was not the kind of puppet master that the press and the admin made him out to be (he trained and recruited, and financed, but the "feet on the ground" are the ones that came up with the jobs (though Sept. 11 was a UBL original as sighted in the notebooks found in afghanistan.)
     
  15. Jan 16, 2006 #14
    An Attack on Women and Children is never justified!! What is the world coming to? There is a worse place in Hell for the people who Murder children!
     
  16. Jan 16, 2006 #15
    There's a place in hell for people who murder children, and a place for people who murder people who murder children, and a place for people who murder people who murder people who murder children, ad infinitum.
     
  17. Jan 16, 2006 #16

    Art

    User Avatar

    And hopefully a nice warm place for those sickos who condone such murders too.

    One rather obvious problem with the dinner party cover story being circulated is that at least 3 separate buildings were hit a few hundred yards apart. Is there some strange custom I am unaware of whereby a different course is served in each house???? Or does it simply portray a scatter gun approach with a total disregard for human life??? :rolleyes:
     
  18. Jan 18, 2006 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The attack was not "on" women and children, the attack was on the terrorists who were at the dinner party. The fact that the women and children were around the terrorists is the fault of whoever held the dinner party and as a result, they, not the US, are the murderers. And the accomplices would be the parents of any children who were in neigboring residences for not protecting their children from the terrorists they were living near.

    This issue works exactly the same as international law regarding the use of human shields and the use of civilians as cannon-fodder (what Saddam's troops did during the war - force civilians to walk toward American positions, forcing the American troops to kill the civilians).

    The attack is reported to have killed a very high-end member of Al Qaeda, and if that is correct, that makes it a highly successful attack. Any women or children killed are, then, his last victims.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  19. Jan 18, 2006 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Given the accuracy of the weapons used, it can be assumed that the 3 buildings were hit on purpose. What this implies to me is that they weren't sure which building they would be in.
    Hardly. Collateral damage is a reality in any armed conflict and must be weighed against the importance of the target. In this case, killing a man who had a hand in the murder of thousands of people - and would kill more if allowed to - makes it a fair trade.

    And need I point out that our enemies in this conflict weigh such issues backwards? Al Qaeda's attacks are, for the most part, specifically calculated to maximize civilian deaths.
     
  20. Jan 19, 2006 #19
    This is your opinion. Also you are assuming that the people who held the dinner party knew the people around them were "terrorists"

    Anyway I am happy at least the pakistain goverment wont be allowing the US to carry out these sort of attacks again!

    I didnt relise that the US we at war with the Pakistain civilan populus.
     
  21. Jan 19, 2006 #20

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    .... reading all this and what we're left with are the same "old" rationalizations, which enable both sides (or whatever side) the ability to justify whatever action - there is always some 'link' which makes any action justifiable to someone wearing the appropriately tuned goggles. At least as long as short term solutions are the only way to pursue a solution.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Ayman al-Zawahiri might be dead
  1. Al Jazeera (Replies: 4)

  2. Al Gore might run again (Replies: 33)

  3. Obama on Al Arabia (Replies: 34)

Loading...