Ayman al-Zawahiri might be dead

  • News
  • Thread starter scott1
  • Start date
  • #1
330
1
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1504096
Today, according to Pakistani military sources, U.S. aircraft attacked a compound known to be frequented by high level al Qaeda operatives. Pakistani officials tell ABC News that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, may have been among them.
This good news now Osama bin laden's second in comand officer and his doctor is(might be) dead
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
rachmaninoff
Again?......
 
  • #3
Art
rachmaninoff said:
Again?......
Apparently not. Just another 18 innocent civilians dead... Killed by that well known state sponsored international terrorist group the CIA. :rolleyes:

Zawahiri 'not hit by US missile'

Zawahiri has been in hiding since 2001
The deputy leader of al-Qaeda was not in a Pakistani village near the Afghan border which was hit in an apparent missile attack, Pakistan officials say.
The unnamed officials said the attack - in which at least 18 people were killed - was based on "false information".
Quoting intelligence sources, US media said it was a CIA raid. The US military says it is not aware of any operations taking place in the Bajaur tribal area.

Pakistan's information minister condemned the attack.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference the US ambassador would be summoned to explain.

The Pakistani government wanted "to assure the people we will not allow such incidents to reoccur", Mr Ahmed said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4612400.stm
 
  • #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?
 
  • #5
330
1
Treadstone 71 said:
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?
I never herd of anything about candians dieing in afghanstain.
 
  • #6
rachmaninoff
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
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."
 
  • #8
rachmaninoff
Also, don't be a kid living within 200 meters of a terrorist sympathizer. Anything that happens is your own fault.
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
rachmaninoff said:
Also, don't be a kid living within 200 meters of a terrorist sympathizer. Anything that happens is your own fault.
Correction: your parents' fault.
 
  • #10
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,979
2,322
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."
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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack [Broken]

Pakistani intelligence officials said the reported target, al-Qaida No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri, had been invited to the attacked village for a dinner marking a Muslim festival on the night of the missile strike but he failed to show up.

With the government's alliance in the U.S.-led war on international terror groups already unpopular in this Muslim country, the deaths of at least 17 people in Friday's attack have stoked widespread anger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
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:
  • #12
alexandra
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.
 
  • #13
379
0
scott1 said:
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
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.)
 
  • #14
221
0
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/2...n-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...' ) and the parents of those two teenage twin girls who are looking for a career in racist folk-music.
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!
 
  • #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.
 
  • #16
Art
Treadstone 71 said:
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.
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:
 
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
Anttech said:
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!
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:
  • #18
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
Art said:
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...
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.
...with a total disregard for human life??? :rolleyes:
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.
 
  • #19
221
0
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 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!

Hardly. Collateral damage is a reality in any armed conflict and must be weighed against the importance of the target.
I didnt relise that the US we at war with the Pakistain civilan populus.
 
  • #20
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
1
.... 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.
 
  • #21
Art
It seems not unlikely that the report of 3 dead senior al-Qaida figures is simply propaganda by the Pakistani gov't to try and quell the protests in Pakistan seeing as how no bodies, body parts or even blood have been recovered to allow DNA testing.
 
  • #22
Art
russ_watters said:
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.
Interesting viewpoint. So on that basis to avoid being labelled a hypocrite you must consider the victims of 9/11 to be not victims of terrorism but justifiable 'collateral damage'. Afterall the attacks were against major economic and military targets and so when as you suggest this is "weighed against the importance of the target" do you thing the 3000 dead civilians were an acceptable cost in human life or do Pakistanis, Iraqis and other foreigners lives have less value than an american's in your eyes?? And how about your own family? What value do you put on that? If a terrorist was living near you and the CIA took him and the neighborhood out including your family would that be acceptable to you??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
Anttech said:
This is your opinion.
Not my opinion, the opinion of people who write law. I've seen people in here who seem genuinely confused as to why the US isn't being pursued in the UN for war crimes. That's why: you are misunderstanding how these things work.

The law on this is pretty straightforward and it doesn't just apply in war: if you put yourself or someone else in a situation that is dangerous and they die - even if you didn't pull the trigger - you are responsible because you put them in that situation. Thats how it works with hostage-takers and shootouts with police, for example.
Also you are assuming that the people who held the dinner party knew the people around them were "terrorists"
Huh? :confused: The people who held the party invited the terrorists!
Anyway I am happy at least the pakistain goverment wont be allowing the US to carry out these sort of attacks again!
Right - just like they didn't allow us to carry out this one. :rolleyes:
I didnt relise that the US we at war with the Pakistain civilan populus.
Look up the definition of the term "collateral damage" and try that comment again: it has nothing at all to do with what I said. Edit: that is so close to being precisely opposite what I said in my post, I have a hard time accepting that that wasn't a purposeful mischaracterization. If you want to discuss this, please correct it. If you just want to mindlessly bash the US without actually analyzing the actions, let me know and I'll leave you to it.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
PerennialII said:
.... 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.
There is a "right" and "wrong" way to view this: the right way is in accordance with the way the law works and the wrong way is through the goggles of knee-jerk US-hating.
 
  • #25
russ_watters
Mentor
20,127
6,646
Art, the first sentence of your post is so far off what I actually said, I won't even bother responding. If you want a response, rewrite it in a way that isn't purposely mischaracterizing what I said. You are trolling.

For the second part, simply flip the scenario over and see if it still works. Clearly, it doesn't.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Ayman al-Zawahiri might be dead

  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
785
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
514
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
Top