U.S. Drone Strike Said to Have Killed Ayman al-Zawahri, Top Qaeda Leader

[ill]

And fourth, almost all countries in the world were eager to cooperate with the United States after the 9/11 shock, and this included two of the very few that had supported the Taliban previously: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the Saudis had tried for years to get bin Laden, a Saudi renegade, extradited. They appear to have been close in 1998, but the deal fell through after the Americans bombed Afghanistan in response to al‐Qaida attacks on two of its embassies in Africa. However, the Saudis kept up the effort, and two weeks before 9/11 the chief Saudi negotiator had been sacked by the Crown prince because he had failed thus far to get bin Laden.

Given these conditions, the insecure regime in Afghanistan might have been susceptible to international pressure, perhaps even to the point of turning Osama bin Laden and his top associates over to international justice, which is more than the invasion accomplished.

If necessary, selective bombing and commando raids might have been used, rather that outright invasion, to emphasize the message. But, as international law specialist Mary Ellen O’Connell pointed out at the time, there have long been legal procedures to deal with lawless substate entities like pirates and slave dealers, and these could readily be applied to the authors of 9/11. Rather than give themselves up, al‐Qaida might have fled Afghanistan, but that happened anyway after the U.S.-led invasion.

The Taliban said it wanted proof that 9/11 was an al‐Qaeda operation, but that could have been gathered perhaps to its satisfaction. It also suggested that bin Laden might be handed over to an organization of 56 Muslim states which would include, of course, many close to the United States. However, as the bombing began, the Taliban reportedly offered to give bin Laden up to any country other than the United States without seeing evidence of guilt.

Imagine believing the Taliban were gonna turn over bin Laden just before 9/11.

Why didnt they turn him over during the 15 years prior while he was on the most wanted list for blowing up our embassies?

Why didn't they kick him out of their country if he was causing them such grave danger?

And in what world do you think the Taliban could even "get" him?? The ISI might have something to say about that

Oh and from your article: The Saudi's, a fellow Muslim country, were DENIED by Afghanistan. They also straight up said America cant have him. Why would we let some other country prosecute him for crimes committed against our country!?

If the Taliban really wanted him gone, they could have given up his position so we could take him out without having to invade the entire country.

As "upset" as youre trying to make the Taliban out to be, they clearly weren't THAT upset. They would only allow him to be tried by Muslim court....aka not be held accountable by the actual nations and people he killed.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

As "upset" as youre trying to make the Taliban out to be, they clearly weren't THAT upset. They would only allow him to be tried by Muslim court....aka not be held accountable by the actual nations and people he killed.

And choosing to compromise on that point would obviously have been SO much worse than the route we took, right?

 

[ill]

And choosing to compromise on that point would obviously have been SO much worse than the route we took, right?

These same Arab/Muslim nations had 20+ years to take him through their courts. Your belief that he would be justly held accountable for his actions against America, a country that was universally hated by said Muslim nations even prior to 9/11, is some extremely gross wishful thinking. For fukks sake Pakistan, our "ally in the war on terror", was harboring him for years. These are the nations you think would give him justice for bombing our buildings, embassies, and ships?


Oh and if bin Laden was in jail, does he magically stop running his worldwide terror networks?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

These same Arab/Muslim nations had 20+ years to take him through their courts.

That statement is nonsense on so many levels (all Muslim states are a monolith now?) and bears no relevance to the conditions after 9/11. The articles stand on their own, and I trust the judgement of those writing them (particularly the Cato Institute one) more than I trust you.

Even if you are very skeptical, pursuing that end was obviously an option with far fewer negative repercussions than the option we chose.

For fukks sake Pakistan, our "ally in the war on terror", was harboring him for years.

For fukks sake Pakistan gave up Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

Once again you're participating in the compartimentalized tunnel vision that I pointed out earlier. It's ridiculous to consider these actions in a vacuum that doesn't take into account all the other shyt we had done and were doing and where we chose to place ourselves in regardless to the Muslim community. The situation directly after 9/11 bears virtually no resemblance at all to the situation after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanisthan where we'd invaded two Muslim countries, killed over a million people, and terrorized entire populations for decades while conservative commentators and military generals talked shyt about Islam and said we should convert or kill them all.

Oh and if bin Laden was in jail, does he magically stop running his worldwide terror networks?

Possibly. Whereas while we were at war we KNOW he didn't stop running them.

Once again, you're arguing for a plan that DID fail in order to deride a plan that "might" have failed.

Oh, and those terrorist networks committed dramatically MORE attacks after we went to war, and terrorists in general killed far MORE people after we killed bin Laden, not fewer. So if the goal of your process is "disrupt the global terrorism network and keep them from carrying out attacks", will you admit that the path of action taken failed miserably in achieving that goal?



If you like war, you like war. It's the American way, you've been indoctrinated in it since childhood, no message board conversation is going to suddenly reverse all your programing. But I will just note that you claim full knowledge of the outcome of a path that wasn't even tried, and are resolutely against even attempting it, in favor of a path that you know in actual fact didn't work and led to enormously worse consequences in the meantime.

 

[ill]

That statement is nonsense on so many levels (all Muslim states are a monolith now?) and bears no relevance to the conditions after 9/11. The articles stand on their own, and I trust the judgement of those writing them (particularly the Cato Institute one) more than I trust you.

Even if you are very skeptical, pursuing that end was obviously an option with far fewer negative repercussions than the option we chose.





For fukks sake Pakistan gave up Khalid Sheik Muhammed.

Once again you're participating in the compartimentalized tunnel vision that I pointed out earlier. It's ridiculous to consider these actions in a vacuum that doesn't take into account all the other shyt we had done and were doing and where we chose to place ourselves in regardless to the Muslim community. The situation directly after 9/11 bears virtually no resemblance at all to the situation after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanisthan where we'd invaded two Muslim countries, killed over a million people, and terrorized entire populations for decades while conservative commentators and military generals talked shyt about Islam and said we should convert or kill them all.





Possibly. Whereas while we were at war we KNOW he didn't stop running them.

Once again, you're arguing for a plan that DID fail in order to deride a plan that "might" have failed.

Oh, and those terrorist networks committed dramatically MORE attacks after we killed bin Laden, not fewer. So if the goal of your process is "disrupt the global terrorism network and keep them from carrying out attacks", will you admit that the path of action taken failed miserably in achieving that goal?



If you like war, you like war. It's the American way, you've been indoctrinated in it since childhood, no message board conversation is going to suddenly reverse all your programing. But I will just note that you claim full knowledge of the outcome of a path that wasn't even tried, and are resolutely against even attempting it, in favor of a path that you know in actual fact didn't work and led to enormously worse consequences in the meantime.

You live in a straight up delusional world. fukk a monolith, pick ANY Muslim nation to go prosecute him. You act like America hadn't tried to capture him for fukking decades. Whatever Muslim nation/court you think should have held him accountable, WHY DIDNT THEY DO JUST THAT?

Why didnt the Taliban give up his location AFTER we started bombing them?

No one said anything about liking war, Iraq has nothing to fukking do with Osama, and no one said to not try. They did try for decades.

Cool story that Pakistan gave up a terrorist. Guess who they DIDNT give up? The #1 most wanted terrorist...thats why we had to have a super secret op in foreign land without their permission to go assassinate him. Crazy how that works isn't it.

You got gangs in America like MS13 running their entire ops from a prison cell and you think the worlds #1 most wanted man isn't going to do the same thing? Did you miss how he still ran his network while being hunted by the NSA, CIA, US military, and every other alphabet agency for decades but you think a prison cell is gonna put an end to all that? Comical

Like I said earlier, your entire stance is a bunch of bullshyt wishful thinking that isn't based in reality.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You live in a straight up delusional world. fukk a monolith, pick ANY Muslim nation to go prosecute him. You act like America hadn't tried to capture him for fukking decades.

Obviously false statements like that suggest you aren't knowledgable enough to be insisting you know the answers.

When did the America make the first attempt to capture bin Laden, or even start considering it an objective? How many Muslim nations could have given him up in that timeline?

Whatever Muslim nation/court you think should have held him accountable, WHY DIDNT THEY DO JUST THAT?

Because he was beyond their reach. He had to flee to Afghanistan because he wasn't welcome in other Muslim nations and likely would have been given up. The Taliban was a complete pariah globally, 95% of Muslim nations didn't even recognize them. And even the Taliban had many elements that wanted to give him up and were favorable to a pathway to doing so.

Also, you are aware 9/11 occurred on September 11, 2001, correct? And changed the equation slightly? I'm trying to check this because your beligerant frothing seems to ignore that.

Why didnt the Taliban give up his location AFTER we started bombing them?

For two reasons that I can see:

#1. You're asking them to unilaterally give up their leverage without having recieved the slightest evidence from Bush that he wouldn't continue to go through with the bombing and war anyway. Something we would never do ourselves, but you demand it from them.
#2. The Muslim world trusts the West as little as you trust them. US officials have committed horrific atrocities against numerous other nations, have we EVER given up our own officials in order to stand trial in a Muslim country for war crimes? Yet you expect them to do the same for us without question. So as a compromise, they offered to give up the perp to stand trial in a Muslim court, formed entirely by nations who had already strongly condemned the attacks in no uncertain terms, which again is far better than we have done. And due to the existential threat hanging over their heads they might have even gone further, but we refused to talk and refused to negotiate.

No one said anything about liking war, Iraq has nothing to fukking do with Osama, and no one said to not try. They did try for decades.

I'm still flabbergasted where you're making up this "decades" claim. You appear to know virtually nothing about what happened.

And your words belay how much you trust war. You demand assurances and certainty for the non-war option that you have never asked of the war option.

Cool story that Pakistan gave up a terrorist. Guess who they DIDNT give up? The #1 most wanted terrorist...thats why we had to have a super secret op in foreign land without their permission to go assassinate him. Crazy how that works isn't it.

How fukking ignorant are you going to be after already having it pointed out to you how much the situation changed between September 2001 and May 2011? This has already been pointed out to you and you utterly ignored it.

You got gangs in America like MS13 running their entire ops from a prison cell and you think the worlds #1 most wanted man isn't going to do the same thing? Did you miss how he still ran his network while being hunted by the NSA, CIA, US military, and every other alphabet agency for decades but you think a prison cell is gonna put an end to all that? Comical

Breh did you just completely ignore what I said again? You're operating with raging blindness.

Like I said earlier, your entire stance is a bunch of bullshyt wishful thinking that isn't based in reality.

It's amazing that you claim to know with certitude the exact outcome of counterfactuals when you can't even acknowledge what actually happpened in our own timeline.

 

[Hood Critic]

 

[Pressure]

Did worse damage than the drones...wonder if we'll wax poetic about that too.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Did worse damage than the drones...wonder if we'll wax poetic about that too.

Their families appreciate your compassion and clear consideration of their humanity.

 

[Pressure]

Their families appreciate your compassion and clear consideration of their humanity.

Their people. Their problems.

 

[Pressure]

Photographer Fatimah Hossaini: ‘In Kabul, there was so much hope and desire’

The Afghan-Iranian artist narrowly escaped from Kabul to Paris last August, as the Taliban took over. She talks about the terror of that time, why she still longs for home, and her work photographing Afghan women in exile

www.theguardian.com

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I have an alternative to drone strikes

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1) Look at what our status quo decisions actually achieved. By following our invade, bomb, and drone philosophy, we finally got this guy after 21 years. He was free to do his shyt for 21 fukking years first under our policy. Osama bin Laden was free for 10 years before we got him. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, on the other hand, was captured just 18 months after 9/11 with the help of Pakistan's ISI, not by a drone or missile strike, and is still in US custody. I'm not sure who else is important enough to consider - despite how important al-Zawahri supposedly is to posters here, it doesn't appear that a single person had typed his name out in the 10 years the site existed before this week (though I did find his name buried in 4 copy-paste articles, none of the commentary by posters on those articles seems to refer to him).

wrong I've been talking about him for years. had your bytch ass not blocked me you'd know this.

read this thread you arrogant dikk: Iran helped 9/11, using the Saudis as proxies. Look at the facts. - US Treasury agrees

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Imagine believing the Taliban were gonna turn over bin Laden just before 9/11.

Why didnt they turn him over during the 15 years prior while he was on the most wanted list for blowing up our embassies?

Why didn't they kick him out of their country if he was causing them such grave danger?

And in what world do you think the Taliban could even "get" him?? The ISI might have something to say about that

Oh and from your article: The Saudi's, a fellow Muslim country, were DENIED by Afghanistan. They also straight up said America cant have him. Why would we let some other country prosecute him for crimes committed against our country!?

If the Taliban really wanted him gone, they could have given up his position so we could take him out without having to invade the entire country.

As "upset" as youre trying to make the Taliban out to be, they clearly weren't THAT upset. They would only allow him to be tried by Muslim court....aka not be held accountable by the actual nations and people he killed.

b-b-b-but Pashtun tribal traditions of taking in those in need

 

[ill]

Obviously false statements like that suggest you aren't knowledgable enough to be insisting you know the answers.

When did the America make the first attempt to capture bin Laden, or even start considering it an objective? How many Muslim nations could have given him up in that timeline?






Because he was beyond their reach. He had to flee to Afghanistan because he wasn't welcome in other Muslim nations and likely would have been given up. The Taliban was a complete pariah globally, 95% of Muslim nations didn't even recognize them. And even the Taliban had many elements that wanted to give him up and were favorable to a pathway to doing so.

Also, you are aware 9/11 occurred on September 11, 2001, correct? And changed the equation slightly? I'm trying to check this because your beligerant frothing seems to ignore that.






For two reasons that I can see:

#1. You're asking them to unilaterally give up their leverage without having recieved the slightest evidence from Bush that he wouldn't continue to go through with the bombing and war anyway. Something we would never do ourselves, but you demand it from them.
#2. The Muslim world trusts the West as little as you trust them. US officials have committed horrific atrocities against numerous other nations, have we EVER given up our own officials in order to stand trial in a Muslim country for war crimes? Yet you expect them to do the same for us without question. So as a compromise, they offered to give up the perp to stand trial in a Muslim court, formed entirely by nations who had already strongly condemned the attacks in no uncertain terms, which again is far better than we have done. And due to the existential threat hanging over their heads they might have even gone further, but we refused to talk and refused to negotiate.






I'm still flabbergasted where you're making up this "decades" claim. You appear to know virtually nothing about what happened.

And your words belay how much you trust war. You demand assurances and certainty for the non-war option that you have never asked of the war option.





How fukking ignorant are you going to be after already having it pointed out to you how much the situation changed between September 2001 and May 2011? This has already been pointed out to you and you utterly ignored it.






Breh did you just completely ignore what I said again? You're operating with raging blindness.






It's amazing that you claim to know with certitude the exact outcome of counterfactuals when you can't even acknowledge what actually happpened in our own timeline.

Osama timeline

We’ve been after him since the Persian gulf war where we set up a permanent military base in Saudi Arabia, also known as the reason bin laden declared war against us. A good decade before 9/11. Osama wasn’t killed until 2011, leaving two decades where Osama and/or the Taliban could have tried your peaceful protest bullshyt route.

Not gonna bother with the rest of your “ignorant” post so have a good one.