Zawahiri reportedly killed

[Carolina Red]

More historic footage of al Zawahiri here, this time weighing in on the Family Guy controversy:

 

[Carolina Red]

the proper way for murderers to kill murderers is ultimately a thing for murderers to decide. i'd prefer it didn't happen at all. definitely won't cheer it.

Right so you’ve got no actual answer and just want to complain. Got it. Enjoy your hand wringing.

 

[Carolina Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[neverdie]

Right so you’ve got no actual answer and just want to complain. Got it. Enjoy your hand wringing.

if the question is what way should the leader of a terrorist organisation be killed, i think we should acknowledge that the us has since 9/11 become a terrorist organisation for many people around the world. i've just given you information on that topic but most will already know about it. like i said, bad person kills bad person. good. will i cheer bad person one over bad person two? no.

medhi hasan is usually a long-standing critic of insert whatever the us is doing. but then he'll tell us why it doesn't matter in the next line. on point. having said that, his basic formulation isn't so different from mine. us drone terrorism is bad. aq leader is bad. good that one is dead not good that drone terrorism continues.

 

[Carolina Red]

if the question is what way should the leader of a terrorist organisation be killed, i think we should acknowledge that the us has since 9/11 become a terrorist organisation for many people around the world. i've just given you information on that topic but most will already know about it. like i said, bad person kills bad person. good. will i cheer bad person one over bad person two? no.

medhi hasan is usually a long-standing critic of insert whatever the us is doing. but then he'll tell us why it doesn't matter in the next line. on point. having said that, his basic formulation isn't so different from mine. us drone terrorism is bad. aq leader is bad. good that one is dead not good that drone terrorism continues.

Enjoy your hand wringing.

 

[neverdie]

yeah but by the same token you're taking issue with someone who's pointing out that many thousands of people have been killed and most of them innocent by this method. that the us has acted like a terrorist agency in that region for two decades. some would say more but we don't have to go beyond that.

what is it that you want to say? that anyone who has a problem with drone terrorism must support aq? because that's ridiculous. like medhi said, bad terrorist killed. good. killed by means of terrorism responsible for deaths of thousands of innocent people. bad. not sure how you can object to that or that someone should point it out.

 

[Carolina Red]

yeah but by the same token you're taking issue with someone who's pointing out that many thousands of people have been killed and most of them innocent by this method. that the us has acted like a terrorist agency in that region for two decades. some would say more but we don't have to go beyond that.

what is it that you want to say? that anyone who has a problem with drone terrorism must support aq? because that's ridiculous. like medhi said, bad terrorist killed. good. killed by means of terrorism responsible for deaths of thousands of innocent people. bad. not sure how you can object to that or that someone should point it out.

I asked a simple question. You can’t answer it, so I’m done here.

 

[Rado_N]

Right so you’ve got no actual answer and just want to complain. Got it. Enjoy your hand wringing.

I understand the emotional reaction given the impact of 9/11 and I certainly have no sympathy for this asshole, but I think it’s fair to say that a drone strike to kill him 20+ years after the incident when there’s no current threat doesn’t really fall within any rational definition of justice.

If there was an opportunity to go in and get him, have at it, put him through a trial and celebrate the win for morality and justice, but this doesn’t really feel like that. It’s kinda the same with OBL; it would have been infinitely more satisfying to see the cnut standing trial in the US instead of being killed in secret and sent to a watery grave.

The US (and especially the CIA) has a pretty damned shady history, the more that happens in the public eye the better, and the less use of drone strikes the better.

This will feel good for a lot of people and I can understand it but where does it end?

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I think Mehdi has to say this because he works for MSNBC. If he said anything less he would be kicked to the curb in a NY minute.

Also interesting that he uses anti-Shia violence as a way to justify it

 

[Carolina Red]

a drone strike to kill him 20+ years after the incident when there’s no current threat doesn’t really fall within any rational definition of justice

Yes it does. There isn’t a statute of limitations for what he did.

I think Mehdi has to say this because he works for MSNBC. If he said anything less he would be kicked to the curb in a NY minute.

Also interesting that he uses anti-Shia violence as a way to justify it

He’s Shia.

 

[Sir Matt]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

In an effort to minimize civilian casualties, the US developed the R9X missile that basically deploys a bunch of blades with no warhead. This is apparently how Al-Zawahiri was killed, and it's been used for other high value targets in the past.

https://www.bellingcat.com/resource...s-of-the-us-militarys-new-bladed-missile-r9x/

 

[Rado_N]

Yes it does. There isn’t a statute of limitations for what he did.

Come on dude, the context of the rest of my post is pretty clear. I’m not for one minute suggesting “ah it was ages ago just forget it”.

 

[Raoul]

Yes it does. There isn’t a statute of limitations for what he did.

He’s Shia.

Yes, i know. The fact that he threw that in but also covered all his other bases (Christians, Jews, Muslims) shows he tried to avoid any blowback for his comments.

 

[Carolina Red]

Come on dude, the context of the rest of my post is pretty clear. I’m not for one minute suggesting “ah it was ages ago just forget it”.

I’d much rather drone strike his ass to kingdom come than have Blackhawk Down: Kabul happen trying to extract him.

 

[Sir Matt]

This is a good thread on the background/intel work that led to the strike:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

This is a good thread on the background/intel work that led to the strike:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Siraj is next.

 

[Rado_N]

I’d much rather drone strike his ass to kingdom come than have Blackhawk Down: Kabul happen trying to extract him.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Carolina Red]

These things are not mutually exclusive.

One is infinitely more likely to happen when you’re attempting to extract an individual alive out of a city. It’s exactly what happened in Mogadishu, actually, and would be a definite possibility to happen in Kabul. I mean… even the mission that took out OBL lost a helicopter at OBL’s compound.

It’s hard to lose helicopters and men when you hit AQ’s leader with a Hellfire missile that’s apparently carrying Katanas.

 

[Attila]

Thought this was about Nadhim Zahawi for a moment

 

[neverdie]

"Bad man" (kills thousands, part of terrorist cell).

so "bad" here = murder of innocent people.

"...killed"

killed (the actions that gives "badness" its value).

"...by drone strike" (drone program is responsible for deaths of thousands of innocent people).

so

"Bad man killed by drone strike".

=bad man killed by bad people, or people behind bad program.

or

=terrorist killed by terrorist action.

it's like two parts bad and one part good. one less terrorist but by self perpetuating terrorist action. death of terrorism by terrorism. that's not good overall. the good thing would have been to bring him to trial. to say you've killed or help plan an event that killed thousands of people. but we are humane and so instead of killing you we'll put you in prison for the rest of your life instead.

the happiness victims' families will feel for the most part is not real happiness. it's the happiness given to families of murder victims who wait years and then watch or else get to live through the murderer's execution. doesn't bring the dead person back, some research suggests it makes things worse. so yeah, not a good thing.

so it's basically "mass killer killed by mass killer by method destined to prolong mass killing". three cheers? no thanks.

also dislike the "i wont weep for him but..." or "feck this cnut but.." preambles. guilty of it myself and so i understand why people do it but what you or we are doing here is saying "trust me i don't support aq". yes, i didn't think you did and i hope you didn't think i did. it's a template which tries to modify legitimate criticism which just speaks to the level of fecked up shit in the world that people feel they have to defend themselves against associaton with terrorists before condemning terrorist action imo.

so i get why people think this is good because there is one part good to it. one less terrorist. but overall when you consider the history of drone strikes and their current usage plus future usage this is more bad than good which is where my criticsm comes from.

 

[calodo2003]

Drone strike was the proper & necessary way to take this terrorist out. Glad it was used v. putting boots on the ground.

 

[Raoul]

Drone strike was the proper & necessary way to take this terrorist out. Glad it was used v. putting boots on the ground.

Indeed. If the drone wasn’t available they wouldn’t have been able to get him.

 

[neverdie]

Drone strike was the proper & necessary way to take this terrorist out. Glad it was used v. putting boots on the ground.

except drone strikes have proven to be terrorist measures over a long period of time. it's a bad thing on balance even if you can claim it to be good here.

 

[Raoul]

except drone strikes have proven to be terrorist measures over a long period of time. it's a bad thing on balance even if you can claim it to be good here.

Not when you consider that the alternative is to invade a country to get the same target, resulting in far more damage and civilian causalities.

 

[neverdie]

Not when you consider that the alternative is to invade a country to get the same target, resulting in far more damage and civilian causalities.

no chance of negotiating terms with taliban? maybe as part of the $7bn or whatever the figure is of their foreign reserves being returned to them, which it should but that's another story. tribal laws are what they are but the taliban are capable of being pragmatic when they have to be.

 

[Carolina Red]

no chance of negotiating terms with taliban? maybe as part of the $7bn or whatever the figure is of their foreign reserves being returned to them, which it should but that's another story. tribal laws are what they are but the taliban are capable of being pragmatic when they have to be.

Yeah negotiating with the Taliban to take out the leader of AQ worked out so well the first time we tried it.

Remind me again whose house Zawahiri was in when he died..?

 

[matherto]

I understand the emotional reaction given the impact of 9/11 and I certainly have no sympathy for this asshole, but I think it’s fair to say that a drone strike to kill him 20+ years after the incident when there’s no current threat doesn’t really fall within any rational definition of justice.

If there was an opportunity to go in and get him, have at it, put him through a trial and celebrate the win for morality and justice, but this doesn’t really feel like that. It’s kinda the same with OBL; it would have been infinitely more satisfying to see the cnut standing trial in the US instead of being killed in secret and sent to a watery grave.

The US (and especially the CIA) has a pretty damned shady history, the more that happens in the public eye the better, and the less use of drone strikes the better.

This will feel good for a lot of people and I can understand it but where does it end?

Some people will never face justice in the way we want so the only other option is to eliminate them and move on.

Shit. But that's the nature of it.

 

[neverdie]

Yeah negotiating with the Taliban to take out the leader of AQ worked out so well the first time we tried it.

Remind me again whose house Zawahiri was in when he died..?

they did expel bin laden and did make offer to expel him or try him according to saudi law even before 9/11 but america didn't go for it. as bad as you think negotiations went, it was better than the wars which followed.

what you really mean is "no, you can't negotiate with the taliban" and "do you know whose house he was in when murdered?". i'm open to reasons why the first is worse than wars and drone terrorism, even if not perfect, and i do know the taliban knew his whereabouts but not sure of owner of safehouse.

 

[Carolina Red]

they did expel bin laden and did make offer to expel him or try him according to saudi law even before 9/11 but america didn't go for it. as bad as you think negotiations went, it was better than the wars which followed.

They demanded proof that Bin Laden’s guilt and ended up invaded. So no, I wouldn’t recommend negotiating with them.

and i do know the taliban knew his whereabouts but not sure of owner of safehouse.

An aide to Sirajuddin Haqqani… the #2 Taliban leader.

They weren’t gonna give him up. He was under their protection ffs

 

[neverdie]

They demanded proof that Bin Laden’s guilt and ended up invaded. So no, I wouldn’t recommend negotiating with them.

Sirajuddin Haqqani… a Taliban leader.

They weren’t gonna give him up. He was under their protection ffs

that's not unreasonable. the us had a lot of it so why not comply? or did they send on proof and taliban still refused?

i can understand them wanting to "protect" someone the us has interest in. maybe use it as chip for the return of their stolen foreign reserve money. afghan government is fighting isis as of now. aq poses basically no threat according to us itself.

 

[USREDEVIL]

I’d much rather drone strike his ass to kingdom come than have Blackhawk Down: Kabul happen trying to extract him.

damn right. he doesn't deserve it.
well done US Military, add another notch

 

[Carolina Red]

that's not unreasonable. the us had a lot of it so why not comply? or did they send on proof and taliban still refused?

i can understand them wanting to "protect" someone the us has interest in. maybe use it as chip for the return of their stolen foreign reserve money. afghan government is fighting isis as of now. aq poses basically no threat according to us itself.

Jesus man get your head out of the sand.

The Haqqanis are allies of Al Qaeda. They helped hide Bin Laden and get him out of Afghanistan when the war started. Hell, Jalaluddin Haqqani recruited Bin Laden to fight in Afghanistan in the first place against the Soviets.

Zawahiri wasn’t in a Haqqani safe house by accident. They were doing for him the same thing they did for his predecessor.

 

[Reapersoul20]

Drone used completely appropriately. @neverdie shouts at clouds. More at 11.

 

[neverdie]

Jesus man get your head out of the sand.

The Haqqanis are allies of Al Qaeda. They helped hide Bin Laden and get him out of Afghanistan when the war started. Hell, Jalaluddin Haqqani recruited Bin Laden to fight in Afghanistan in the first place against the Soviets.

but did they send proof? or did they decide it was war unless extradicted without proof?

i know some of the interrelationships in play because they are all mostly ex cia assets recruited and armed to fight the soviets.

Drone used completely appropriately. @neverdie shouts at clouds. More at 11.

yeah one part good to it. two parts bad being thousands of innocent people murdered by the same program and thousands who will be murdered going forward. "terrorist murdered by terrorist program". -1 terrorist by terrorism. is that good? did they know absolutely no innocent people would die? because even they would surely tell you they couldn't guarantee that even if they assess it with high accuracy.

 

[Carolina Red]

but did they send proof?

It’s funny that you think they were serious in that request. The Taliban had already just a few years prior said that eyewitness testimony and satellite phone call recordings were “insufficient evidence” to extradite Bin Laden for the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

The Taliban and Haqqani Network were buying time to get him safe from our ongoing bombing campaign… they weren’t going to hand him over. Even as recently as 2021, you have the leader of the Taliban saying that there was never proof that OBL was behind 9/11.

 

[Carolina Red]

damn right. he doesn't deserve it.
well done US Military, add another notch

Amen

Drone used completely appropriately. @neverdie shouts at clouds. More at 11.

And amen

 

[neverdie]

It’s funny that you think they were serious in that request. The Taliban had already just a few years prior said that eyewitness testimony and satellite phone call recordings were “insufficient evidence” to extradite Bin Laden for the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

The Taliban and Haqqani Network was buying time to get him safe from our ongoing bombing campaign… they weren’t going to hand him over. Even as recently as 2021, you have the leader of the Taliban saying that there was never proof that OBL was behind 9/11.

i think they were serious about using the saudi/islamic method. which tribal law would accommodate.

you'd need to go through the historical record. probably need to be an expert in it too. i'm not. but i do remember proposals to hand him over before and after 9/11.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban’s last foreign minister, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview that his government had made several proposals to the United States to present the al-Qaeda leader, considered the mastermind of the 2001 attacks, for trial for his involvement in plots targeting US facilities during the 1990s.

“Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference [OIC],” Muttawakil said.

“But the US showed no interest in it. They kept demanding we hand him over, but we had no relations with the US, no agreement of any sort. They did not recognise our government.”

The US did not recognise the Taliban government and had no direct diplomatic relations with the group which controlled most of Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001.

But proposals by the Taliban were relayed to the US through indirect channels such as the US embassy in Pakistan or the informal Taliban office for the UN in New York, Muttawakil said.

Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.

Grenier said the US considered the offers to bring in Bin Laden to trial a “ploy”.

“Another idea was that [bin Laden] would be brought to trial before a group of Ulema [religious scholars] in Afghanistan.

“No one in the US government took these [offers] seriously because they did not trust the Taliban and their ability to conduct a proper trial.”

Subsequent to the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as US pressure grew, the Taliban insisted on a procedure under the supervision of O.IC because it considered it a “neutral international organisation”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/9/11/taliban-offered-bin-laden-trial-before-9

anyway don't want to rehash 9/11. i've given my reasons for thinking this generally bad above and it's to do with the terrorist drone program which has killed thousands of innocent people. i won't find myself supporting that program even if you think it did good this time. broken clocks can be right twice a day but on balance it's still broken, or bad.

 

[Carolina Red]

i think they were serious about using the saudi/islamic method. which tribal law would accommodate.

you'd need to go through the historical record. probably need to be an expert in it too. i'm not. but i do remember proposals to hand him over before and after 9/11.

Their prior actions say they weren’t serious. Not to mention what the Haqqanis were up to helping him hide the whole time.

anyway don't want to rehash 9/11. i've given my reasons for thinking this generally bad above and it's to do with the terrorist drone program which has killed thousands of innocent people. i won't find myself supporting that program even if you think it did good this time. broken clocks can be right twice a day but on balance it's still broken, or bad.

Yeah well sometimes things should be celebrated. Shooting people in the head is typically just awful, but that isn’t gonna stop me from celebrating one special shot to the head every 30th of April. Yep, I just Godwin’s Law’d the thread.

 

[neverdie]

Their prior actions say they weren’t serious. Not to mention what the Haqqanis were up to helping him hide the whole time.


Yeah well sometimes things should be celebrated. Shooting people in the head is typically just awful, but that isn’t gonna stop me from celebrating one special shot to the head every 30th of April. Yep, I just Godwin’s Law’d the thread.

extrajudicial killing isn't good. it's a state of affairs to lament imo. that it should ever come to this. i don't think i've ever been happy at the news of or celebrated someone's death. the world is a far worse place now because of 9/11 and everything that came after. not worth celebrating any of it imo as it's all basically misery.

 

[Raoul]

extrajudicial killing isn't good. it's a state of affairs to lament imo. that it should ever come to this. i don't think i've ever been happy at the news of or celebrated someone's death. the world is a far worse place now because of 9/11 and everything that came after. not worth celebrating any of it imo as it's all basically misery.

None of this means those responsible won't be brought to justice by those attacked. If someone has American blood on their hands there's a pretty good chance they will get killed in the end. Just ask the likes of Bin Ladin, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Qassim Suleimani, Anwar al-Awlaki, and now Zawahiri. If one prefers to live, they should't dedicate their lives to terror.