Zawahiri reportedly killed

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,539
I always think it’s a little disingenuous to only tally up deaths due to jihadist terror that took place in the US when comparing body counts. It also smacks of the whole “brown lives don’t matter” accusation so often aimed at the west.
There were posts directly referencing 9/11 previously in this thread. And the reason drones operate, and the reason there is any direct US war effort in that part of the world, is 9/11. So I'm making the comparison for that reason.
Finally, given that his organisation was supposed to be in bed with the current Afghan govt, I don't know how one applies the metrics here - it's not like they were likely to start suicide-bombing the country they control...
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
A broken clock is right twice a day. To say a method is correct because of this mission, when there have been countless others that have failed and resulted in innocent deaths, is putting head in the sand.

An alternative might actually be looking at what contributes to rise of such organizations that cause such havoc. Or do you actually believe they hate us for our freedom?

I've lived in Pakistan, they've killed us way more than they've killed anyone else and it sure isn't because of our freedom.
It was a successful mission using drones. The US is never going to not use drones. The US will continue to try to both automate & further stand off in the future. That means more use of drones. There’s not a more effective method out there that doesn’t require boots on the ground.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
There were posts directly referencing 9/11 previously in this thread. And the reason drones operate, and the reason there is any direct US war effort in that part of the world, is 9/11. So I'm making the comparison for that reason.
Finally, given that his organisation was supposed to be in bed with the current Afghan govt, I don't know how one applies the metrics here - it's not like they were likely to start suicide-bombing the country they control...
Not every recent drone strike in the region is directly attributable to 9/11.
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,323
MARION, Illinois — Daniel Hale, dressed in a khaki uniform, his hair cut short and sporting a long, neatly groomed brown beard, is seated behind a plexiglass screen, speaking into a telephone receiver at the federal prison in Marion, Illinois. I hold a receiver on the other side of the plexiglass and listen as he describes his journey from working for the National Security Agency and the Joint Special Operations Task Force at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to becoming federal prisoner 26069-07.


Hale, a 34-year-old former Air Force signals intelligence analyst, is serving a 45 month prison sentence, following his conviction under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified documents about the U.S. military’s drone assassination program and its high civilian death toll. The documents are believed to be the source material for “The Drone Papers” published by The Intercept, on October 15, 2015.


These documents revealed that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations drone airstrikes killed more than 200 people — of which only 35 were the intended targets. According to the documents, over one five-month period of the operation, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. The civilian dead, usually innocent bystanders, were routinely classified as “enemies killed in action.”

https://scheerpost.com/2022/08/01/when-the-just-go-to-prison/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
5,816
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany
It was a successful mission using drones. The US is never going to not use drones. The US will continue to try to both automate & further stand off in the future. That means more use of drones. There’s not a more effective method out there that doesn’t require boots on the ground.
So basically you're saying we're going to kill innocent people in foreign countries whether you like it or not, just choose one method?

Then they ask "why do they hate us?".
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
So basically you're saying we're going to kill innocent people in foreign countries whether you like it or not, just choose one method?

Then they ask "why do they hate us?".
This cat wasn’t innocent.

We chose the proper method this past weekend.

You seem to like to create alternative arguments in your head & try to lasso people into them.
 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
5,816
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany
This cat wasn’t innocent.

We chose the proper method this past weekend.

You seem to like to create alternative arguments in your head & try to lasso people into them.
By that logic, the police, when they apply racist policies in stopping and searching minority groups, can argue that it works because they manage to find one criminal out of hundreds of others who were innocent?

The only reason the US conducts such illegal operations in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc is because they know these countries are too weak to give an appropriate response, which would be to kill the retired war criminals currently living in peace in the US.

It's the bully tactic. Would love to see the US try to conduct a drone strike to kill Putin, who is currently engaged in an illegal war killing innocent Ukrainians, but we'll leave sanctions for him because they know he can retaliate in a worse way.
 
Last edited:

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
@hasanejaz88 - I’ll ask you the same question… how should he have been killed then?
Isn’t the better question, should he have been killed at all if drone strike was the only option? I just don’t get this idea that killing the bad guys, one by one, using drones will achieve anything positive in the long run. It’s such a universally unpopular approach it mainly seems to act a very effective recruitment tool for jihadists.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
By that logic, the police, when they apply racist policies in stopping and searching minority groups, can argue that it works because they manage to find one criminal out of hundreds of others who were innocent?

The only reason the US conducts such illegal operations in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc is because they know these countries are too weak to give an appropriate response, which would be to kill the retired war criminals currently living in peace in the US.

It's the bully tactic. Would love to see the US try to conduct a drone strike to kill Putin, who is currently engaged in an illegal war killing innocent Ukrainians, but we'll leave sanctions for him because they know he can retaliate in a worse way.
We have stated unequivocally that terrorists will be eliminated in whatever method is deemed the most appropriate. There’s no getting around this, that’s the reality. There’s only two methods, via air (in multiple forms) or sending in troops. The former used extremely judiciously is the much wiser solution.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
Isn’t the better question, should he have been killed at all if drone strike was the only option? I just don’t get this idea that killing the bad guys, one by one, using drones will achieve anything positive in the long run. It’s such a universally unpopular approach it mainly seems to act a very effective recruitment tool for jihadists.
Yes, he should have been killed. There’s no statues of limitations on terrorism.

You are advocating he should be left in charge of Al Qaeda?
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Yes, he should have been killed. There’s no statues of limitations on terrorism.

You are advocating he should be left in charge of Al Qaeda?
I’m not advocating anything. Just suggesting that killing him with a drone might do more harm than good.

Surely nobody thinks killing these guys, one at a time, is going to do any meaningful damage to the whole jihadist movement? Seems much more likely to do the exact opposite.
 

shamans

Thinks you can get an STD from flirting.
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
18,226
Location
Constantly at the STD clinic.
I did find Biden's speech funny. "now you no longer have to fear. We have killed him!" Dude was a nothing player for ages.

An org lost their 71 year old leader. They'll just replace him.
 

OverratedOpinion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,205
Yes, he should have been killed. There’s no statues of limitations on terrorism.

You are advocating he should be left in charge of Al Qaeda?
I think Pogue makes a valuable point.

Leaving emotions aside, even leaving morals aside. In practical terms this probably makes Al Qaeda more of a threat than they were last week.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
I’m not advocating anything. Just suggesting that killing him with a drone might do more harm than good.

Surely nobody thinks killing these guys, one at a time, is going to do any meaningful damage to the whole jihadist movement? Seems much more likely to do the exact opposite.
I get what you are saying, but I don’t think any government subjected to international terror would ever adopt such a policy if they had the means for retribution.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
I think Pogue makes a valuable point.

Leaving emotions aside, even leaving morals aside. In practical terms this probably makes Al Qaeda more of a threat than they were last week.
I get his point, but it’s not really applicable. I don’t think such a reserved policy would ever be adopted by a government with the means to respond to international terror targeting it.
 

maniak

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
9,871
Location
Lisboa
Supports
Arsenal
I think what leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths is that even if this case was a success and no innocents died, it's a reminder of a policy that has been in place for ages (killing targets with drones) that has been responsible for the death of countless innocent civilians.
 

OverratedOpinion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
6,205
I get his point, but it’s not really applicable. I don’t think such a reserved policy would ever be adopted by a government with the means to respond to international terror targeting it.
I agree it is unlikely but I think the question of "is it ultimately the best course of action and if so why not take the action that will have the best implications even if an evil man gets to live?" is a valid conversation to have.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
I agree it is unlikely but I think the question of "is it ultimately the best course of action and if so why not take the action that will have the best implications even if an evil man gets to live?" is a valid conversation to have.
Sure it is. But it will only be an academic exercise with no real world application.
 

Traub

Full Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
10,221
I’m not advocating anything. Just suggesting that killing him with a drone might do more harm than good.

Surely nobody thinks killing these guys, one at a time, is going to do any meaningful damage to the whole jihadist movement? Seems much more likely to do the exact opposite.
I think it may be an effective method in terms of causing chaos and a few months of being able to infiltrate / influence.

In the long-run, it's obvious to say there will still be terrorists / Al Qaeda so what's the point. However, if the status quo is not manageable (i.e. too little intelligence etc.), then these killings create an opportunity to try improve that situation.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,757
Where did I say it was ‘good?’

It was the proper use of military assets to eliminate a high value target. We didn’t use missiles against OBL due to the high probability of collateral damage & it was the right call not to. Here the safe house was smack dab in the middle of a populous city, we learned our lesson in Somalia & probably never even entertained inserting operators.

To not use a (apparently) kinetic stand off weapon which offered the lowest probability of collateral damage because such missions caused such collateral damage in the past is asinine on its face. If you scaled that out, wars would be fought with cotton balls. It’s the military’s / intelligence services’ responsibility to reduce any collateral with the next mission & it appears to have done so.
If foreign agents killed Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush or some other bigshot on US soil without permission, would that be 'proper use of military assets'? Earlier you mentioned that the guy wasn't innocent, which is obviously true, but I suspect the reaction would be rather different. I don't think innocence and collateral damage would be important variables if that were to happen.

In the war thread there's a lot of talk about sovereignty. Obviously mostly Ukraine's, but also in general. It's even been said that Germany is challenging Lithuania's sovereignty by disagreeing about policy. Here, though, Afghanistan's sovereignty doesn't seem to matter much at all.

You didn't say any of these things, I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy or even arguing against anything you're saying, I just think there's a general discrepancy here that I find weird.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
If foreign agents killed Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush or some other bigshot on US soil without permission, would that be 'proper use of military assets'? Earlier you mentioned that the guy wasn't innocent, which is obviously true, but I suspect the reaction would be rather different. I don't think innocence and collateral damage would be important variables if that were to happen.

In the war thread there's a lot of talk about sovereignty. Obviously mostly Ukraine's, but also in general. It's even been said that Germany is challenging Lithuania's sovereignty by disagreeing about policy. Here, though, Afghanistan's sovereignty doesn't seem to matter much at all.

You didn't say any of these things, I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy or even arguing against anything you're saying, I just think there's a general discrepancy here that I find weird.
I get what you are trying to say, but it’s a little bit apples to bicycles. AZ wasn’t a sitting or former head of state & the US’s intentions to eliminate (in this case) those directly responsible for 9.11 regardless of where they reside have been clearly stated for decades.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,757
I get what you are trying to say, but it’s a little bit apples to bicycles. AZ wasn’t a sitting or former head of state & the US’s intentions to eliminate (in this case) those directly responsible for 9.11 regardless of where they reside have been clearly stated for decades.
Well, sure, but just because someone says clearly that they want to eliminate those directly repsonsible for Al-Shifa regardless of where they reside I doubt the assassination of Clinton would be taken in stride. There's no doubt that the US can do what they want, and that they've clearly stated that they don't care about the sovereignty of other nations, that's not in contention. I don't immediately see why it would matter that someone is/was head of state, but if that's important switch them out with a general or something.
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,323
I get what you are trying to say, but it’s a little bit apples to bicycles. AZ wasn’t a sitting or former head of state & the US’s intentions to eliminate (in this case) those directly responsible for 9.11 regardless of where they reside have been clearly stated for decades.
when the israelis went after the survivors of the nazi hierarchy, they did it through clandestine operations as you'd expect. but they didn't leave the same scale of destruction and terror around the world which has been the legacy of the us effort since 9/11. people don't disagree that the us has or had the right to bring the 9/11 actors to justice. they disagree that they have or had the right to invade country after country and kill scores of thousands of innocent people along the way. and i think that's a reasonable objection.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
129,966
Location
Hollywood CA
Isn’t the better question, should he have been killed at all if drone strike was the only option? I just don’t get this idea that killing the bad guys, one by one, using drones will achieve anything positive in the long run. It’s such a universally unpopular approach it mainly seems to act a very effective recruitment tool for jihadists.
Once something like 9/11 happens, the fate of the people who did it will be sealed - especially given the resources the US can bring to bear. Therefore the question simply becomes whether getting these guys involves a full on invasion or a clean drone strike from over the horizon. The latter is far and away the least costly option for all parties involved.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
when the israelis went after the survivors of the nazi hierarchy, they did it through clandestine operations as you'd expect. but they didn't leave the same scale of destruction and terror around the world which has been the legacy of the us effort since 9/11. people don't disagree that the us has or had the right to bring the 9/11 actors to justice. they disagree that they have or had the right to invade country after country and kill scores of thousands of innocent people along the way. and i think that's a reasonable objection.
Not disagreeing, but a massively surgical strike with a kinetic weapon is about as hands off as you can get, even more so than OBL.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
Not disagreeing, but a massively surgical strike with a kinetic weapon is about as hands off as you can get, even more so than OBL.
No one has a problem with the killing of terrorists. The problem is how many innocent people have been killed by the US under the guise of killing terrorists.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
No one has a problem with the killing of terrorists. The problem is how many innocent people have been killed by the US under the guise of killing terrorists.
Totally get that & agree. This time the procedure worked flawlessly.
 

frostbite

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,122
No one has a problem with the killing of terrorists. The problem is how many innocent people have been killed by the US under the guise of killing terrorists.
Guise? Do you mean that the US actually wanted to kill innocent people, and they did so pretending they are trying to kill terrorists?
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,323
Guise? Do you mean that the US actually wanted to kill innocent people, and they did so pretending they are trying to kill terrorists?
don't think they "wanted" to kill innocent people but they did make the decision that they would kill innocent people. they call it "collateral". so in the end what difference does it really make if they wanted to or they just did? the function is the same. they knew they'd have to kill innocent people when they went into iraq. knew the same to be true in libya and syria. and obviously in afghanistan too. so if they wanted to go to war in these places, and you have to assume they did, then they knew the cost. that doesn't = "let's kill innocent people" as topic of conversation deciding where to go to war but does = "we're going to kill innocent people" as obvious part of these wars.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,174
UN report:

“Member States’ predominant view is that Sayf al-‘Adl is now the de facto leader of Al-Qaida, representing continuity for now. But his leadership cannot be declared because of Al-Qaida’s sensitivity to Afghan Taliban concerns not to acknowledge the death of Aiman Muhammed Rabi al-Zawahiri in Kabul and the fact of Sayf al-‘Adl’s presence in the Islamic Republic of Iran. His location raises questions that have a bearing on Al-Qaida’s ambitions to assert leadership of a global movement in the face of challenges from ISIL.”

https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N23/038/91/PDF/N2303891.pdf?OpenElement