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

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

If you made that claim about the Iraq war or something, Id be on board. You're making it on Osama and al-Q. There's no peaceful route that could have been reasonably taken to pacify him and his network. Osama's jihad wouldn't end until all infidels leave Muslim land, til Israel is no more, etc etc. Thats not worth your version of peace.

its like he wants to play freeze tag with terrorists in which case the USA can't move without everyone else getting a +500000 handicap

 

[Pressure]

The irony. You keep attacking people on your intellectual high horse like you're a moral authority. No one here really gives that much of a fukk. I don't get my validation from strangers on the internet, especially ones that are doing the most to defend actual bad guys. You're out here writing god damn college dissertations on every little tidbit. Like bro we dont give a fukk. Its really not that serious. You keep saying people lying and misrepresenting you yet you continue to do the same thing. Your world view is so distorted that you're finding every excuse possible to not kill Osama. Bad guys exist. Sometimes they need to be dealt with. Its that simple so stop complicating it. If you want to go on an anti-war rant feel free to talk about Iraq and you'll have plenty of support. Pretending Osama deserved anything besides death is a joke and disrespectful as fukk to the victims. Your gross insistence that some potential deal could have been made to get Osama is a pipe dream and doesnt end al-Qaeda, its network, or its attacks.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Never said this but keep pointing out how others are lying on your words .

This is exactly what you said:

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

"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?"


Right there you blatantly blamed all Arab/Muslim nations for not prosecuting bin Laden, even though there isn't a single Arab nation that had had the opportunity to take bin Laden through their courts while we were trying to capture him and the only Muslim country that had the opportunity was Afghanistan. So why the fukk are you talking like they all had the opportunity and failed to do so, unless you think all Muslims are the same? Why did you even mention Arabs when he wasn't withing the reach of any Arab states at all?

You stated the US couldn't try him because Afghan only offered to allow him to be tried by Muslim courts. Which ones?

It is stated explicitly in the post that they were willing to set up something under the supervision of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and had proposed that multiple times before 9/11 even happened, or to negotiate a three-nation court to try him or some third-party Muslim nation to take custody. There were multiple options on the table, but even the State Department's own documents show that the US kept fukking up the negotiations via cultural misunderstandings and poor communication, and instead of trying to work it out the just went belligerant and gave up.

So no, Muslim nations are not a monolith and not everyone of them liked Osama....just his message and goals.

Yeah you're a fukking idiot.

Sure. I can admit I didnt have my breakfast yet and was off by a decade.

To be so uninformed on a subject that you claim "decades" when the actual time was "3 years" isn't excused by breakfast. Not to mention you claimed many nations could have gotten him when in fact Afghanistan was literally the only one. But you don't appear to be the kind of person who takes responsibilty.

Here's another big W for you. He OFFICIALLY declared jihad in 1996.

Don't forget, the purpose of the exact sentense where you made that claim was when you claimed, in your exact words, "We’ve been after him since the Persian gulf war". So trying to weasel out and pretend you were right by claiming bin Laden had his low-key agenda he hadn't made official yet is a complete deflection. Until his official declaration in 1996 we didn't go after him. So you lied.

Ok, only one decade. You win again!

No not even "one decade". The USA didn't set up the anti-Osama task force until late 1996, didn't go after him until 1997, and didn't indict him for the embassy bombings until 1998. So your various claims of 15 years before 9/11 to "decades" before 9/11 actually happened 3 to 5 years before 9/11.

In 1996 we had the chance to ask Sudan to turn him over, and our own ambassador at the time explicitly said we weren't interested in that and didn't think bin Laden was that important, we only asked for him to be expelled.

And Pakistan was an ally on the war on terror AFTER 9/11. Dunno why you keep bringing up that reference point as a magical time where ALL things changed by Pakistan pretended to be an ally the entire time.

That sentence isn't very intelligible, but you seem to be confused. 9/11 is a huge reference point in a positive sense, so you pointing out that Pakistan was an ally afterwards is an argument in my favor. By all diplomatic accounts 9/11 made other nations MORE likely to ally with us, not less. You seem to be suggesting that I picked it as a reference point in a negative sense, but the negative reference was gradual - due to the manner in which we conducted the war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, the manner in which we conducted the war in Iraq, mass deaths, torture, anti-Islam statements by US officials, war crimes, illegal detentions, etc.

Pakistan did indeed play both sides during that period. Not sure what I said that you thought suggested otherwise.

That moral high horse you ride on is comical to me. I dont find validation from internet forums. You're making statements that are ludicrous and calling me crazy.

From your own articles:

"All they got to do is turn him [bin Laden] over, and his colleagues and the thugs he hides, as well as destroy his camps and [release] the innocent people being held hostage in Afghanistan," Bush said.

Bush rejected any negotiations as a Taliban leader suggested the Afghan government would be willing to discuss surrendering bin Laden to a third country if the United States provided evidence of his guilt and stopped bombing.

There's no need to discuss it," Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Just turn him over. … There's nothing to negotiate about. They're harboring a terrorist and they need to turn him over."

“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.”

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.

These are from post 222 and from various articles within that post.^

Your reading comprehnsion is failing you again and choosing to bold that sentence was especially stupid. You don't need to trust the Taliban to conduct the trial when they were offering for a 3rd party to conduct the trial. The repeated claims "we don't trust the Taliban trial" were part of the Bush Administration deflection when all they needed to do was negotiate an agreement to get him handed to another nation.

And yet you still cling to this idea that a potential deal could have potentially been made that could have potentially worked for all parties involved and then potentially al-Q would just disappear and potentially the victims would get justice. Whole lot of potential. Now, lets talk PROBABILITY. What is the probability of your utopian outcome? My personal estimate would be under 5%. You're welcome to think its higher. Imagine giving a chance to something with a 5% change of success when homeboy flew planes into your buildings, has a worldwide jihad against your citizens, has bombed multiple embassies, supported x,y,z other terror networks and attacks. From your own articles, Afghanistan MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUSCEPTIBLE and PERHAPS would have done something....but they didnt. They knew who he was and what he did, and they harbored him. They didnt give him up when bombs started dropping. They didnt bother giving up intel when he left their territory. The probability of the Taliban complying is minimal so when you want to make nonsense statements about what the US, Afghanistan, and Taliban "might potentially" do in 2001 at least base it in reality.

You repeatedly proved that you didn't know jack shyt about anything that was happening yet now have the arrogance to pull an exact % probability out of your ass.

"Let me pull this # completely out of my ass and then form my argument around it." - ill


I didn't say jack shyt about making al-queda "just disappear" or any of the other utopian bullshyt about everything working out perfectly for all sides. I don't need to show this was likely to be a utopian solution, just that it would be better than the fukking dystopian disaster path that we chose to follow instead.

Let's imagine that the ONLY outcomes from the entire event was that Osama ends up detained in a 3rd-party country but is never imprisoned in America, Al-Queda doesn't grow any larger than they already were, 200,000 people aren't killed in the Afghan War, millions of people don't remain constantly terrorized by US bombs and drones, nearly 8,000 coalition lives aren't lost, terrorist attacks don't increase by 10-fold due to American actions, and the USA remains in a better position to actually negotiate the capture of additional terrorist leaders because they haven't completely lost all credibility in the Muslim world.

That's a very believable outcome for anyone who knows jack shyt about what was going on (not you). Not guarenteed, but believeable. It's possible that we could have done even better than that, it's also possible that we would only get some of that.

But ANY of that would be better than what we did.

The irony. You keep attacking people on your intellectual high horse like you're a moral authority. No one here really gives that much of a fukk. I don't get my validation from strangers on the internet, especially ones that are doing the most to defend actual bad guys.

I haven't defended a single actual bad guy in this conversation. Only you have done that.

You're out here writing god damn college dissertations on every little tidbit. Like bro we dont give a fukk. Its really not that serious.

Then STFU and stop lying on me if it's not serious to you.

When I take something seriously, I write enough to justify that. And this is an issue I take serious. It's clear that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people aren't serious to you or anyone else you're aligning with.

But the crazy shyt is that you don't give a shyt about lying about me, and you don't care to call out anyone else here when they blatantly lie. But you bytch about someone writing too much. Maybe I write a lot, but I also still have my integrity, and that's more than you can say.

 

[Ya Sinning Mane]

Al Qaeda is like that one black drug dealer the police keep putting in front of the camera to show scared white people in a town that's 97% white that they are cleaning up the streets while little Gunther is in his room learning how to make a pipe bomb but his parents say its cool cause he studying to be a chemist.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So no, Muslim nations are not a monolith and not everyone of them liked Osama....just his message and goals.

I just want to point out, on a board with plenty of Muslim posters, this an actual statement by @ill that he used in defense of his claim that he doesn't treat Muslims as a monolith. And @Pressure and Napoleon dapped it up.


The degree of ignorance combined with arrogance that it takes to keep pushing like the three of them are is mind-boggling.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Overthrow of Gaddafi - we achieved our war aims as planned, operation still ended in dystopian disaster

Overthrow of Saddam - we achieved our war aims as planned, operation still ended in dystopian disaster

Overthrow of Taliban - we achieved our war aims as planned, operations still ended in dystopian disaster

Proxy war against Soviets in Afghanistan - we achieved our war aims as planned, operations still ended in dystopian disaster

Overthrow of Prince Sihanouk and carpet bombing of Cambodia - hard to say wtf our aims even were, but we went hard for 5 years and still ended in dystopian disaster

Carpet bombing of Laos - again, went hard for 5 years and still ended in dystopian disaster

Invasion of Vietnam - 20 years in which we constantly upped the ante and put forth enormous human and material resources....still ended in dystopian disaster



Over 50 years of enormous, dramatic failures, costing millions upon millions of lives. The invasion of Afghanistan was not some one-off mistake. It's not some mild tactical miscalculation, as if we had a 50% chance to succeed (to make up random #'s like ill tried) and we just came up snake-eyes. Over and over again we've tried this same fukking bullshyt and failed so spectactularly that it became undeniably apparent we had chosen a horrible path, that no matter which little details went this way or that way, the strategy was going to be fukked from the beginning.

The fact that the warmongers here can't admit that, can't admit that the strategy which failed over and over will continue to fail, is utter blindness and shows just how deluded pro-war propanda has made Americans. It's a perfect explanation for, while running AGAINST the overthrow of Saddam and the Iraq War, we had Obama just go right in and try and prove he could do a war better with Gaddafi and Libya. And it's a pretty good heads-up for what the state of Ukraine is going to be when this war is over.

 

[ill]

I just want to point out, on a board with plenty of Muslim posters, this an actual statement by @ill that he used in defense of his claim that he doesn't treat Muslims as a monolith. And @Pressure and Napoleon dapped it up.


The degree of ignorance combined with arrogance that it takes to keep pushing like the three of them are is mind-boggling.

x2 for the 145587th dissertation you’ve written in this thread and literally changed no one’s mind.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Overthrow of Gaddafi - we achieved our war aims as planned, operation still ended in dystopian disaster

Overthrow of Saddam - we achieved our war aims as planned, operation still ended in dystopian disaster

Overthrow of Taliban - we achieved our war aims as planned, operations still ended in dystopian disaster

Proxy war against Soviets in Afghanistan - we achieved our war aims as planned, operations still ended in dystopian disaster

Overthrow of Prince Sihanouk and carpet bombing of Cambodia - hard to say wtf our aims even were, but we went hard for 5 years and still ended in dystopian disaster

Carpet bombing of Laos - again, went hard for 5 years and still ended in dystopian disaster

Invasion of Vietnam - 20 years in which we constantly upped the ante and put forth enormous human and material resources....still ended in dystopian disaster



Over 50 years of enormous, dramatic failures, costing millions upon millions of lives. The invasion of Afghanistan was not some one-off mistake. It's not some mild tactical miscalculation, as if we had a 50% chance to succeed (to make up random #'s like ill tried) and we just came up snake-eyes. Over and over again we've tried this same fukking bullshyt and failed so spectactularly that it became undeniably apparent we had chosen a horrible path, that no matter which little details went this way or that way, the strategy was going to be fukked from the beginning.

The fact that the warmongers here can't admit that, can't admit that the strategy which failed over and over will continue to fail, is utter blindness and shows just how deluded pro-war propanda has made Americans. It's a perfect explanation for, while running AGAINST the overthrow of Saddam and the Iraq War, we had Obama just go right in and try and prove he could do a war better with Gaddafi and Libya. And it's a pretty good heads-up for what the state of Ukraine is going to be when this war is over.

I’m not seeing you condemning bad actors only the fact it wasn’t done cleanly.

 

[wire28]

Your world view is so distorted that you're finding every excuse possible to not kill Osama. Bad guys exist. Sometimes they need to be dealt with. Its that simple so stop complicating it. If you want to go on an anti-war rant feel free to talk about Iraq and you'll have plenty of support. Pretending Osama deserved anything besides death is a joke and disrespectful as fukk to the victims. Your gross insistence that some potential deal could have been made to get Osama is a pipe dream and doesnt end al-Qaeda, its network, or its attacks.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Your gross insistence that some potential deal could have been made to get Osama is a pipe dream and doesnt end al-Qaeda, its network, or its attacks.

Neither did the strategy we tried, idiot, it in fact made al-Qaeda's network far larger and their attacks far more common.



I advocated for a strategy that could have increased international cooperation in apprehending terrorists, decreased sympathy for terrorist regimes, decreased the recruitment of new terrorists, and lowered terrorist attacks.

The execution of your strategy provably made all that shyt WORSE and yet you're ignorantly trying to claim those objectives as a reason to follow your strategy.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Neither did the strategy we tried, idiot, it in fact made al-Qaeda's network far larger and their attacks far more common.



I advocated for a strategy that could have increased international cooperation in apprehending terrorists, decreased sympathy for terrorist regimes, decreased the recruitment of new terrorists, and lowered terrorist attacks.

The execution of your strategy provably made all that shyt WORSE and yet you're ignorantly trying to claim those objectives as a reason to follow your strategy.

OK. Propose a strategy.

 

[88m3]

Looks like we haven't threaded the needle yet

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Thread is not mobile friendly

 

[Pressure]

Neither did the strategy we tried, idiot, it in fact made al-Qaeda's network far larger and their attacks far more common.



I advocated for a strategy that could have increased international cooperation in apprehending terrorists, decreased sympathy for terrorist regimes, decreased the recruitment of new terrorists, and lowered terrorist attacks.

The execution of your strategy provably made all that shyt WORSE and yet you're ignorantly trying to claim those objectives as a reason to follow your strategy.

Imagine thinking the value of justice hinges on its ability to change the minds of those who it will be applied to.

 

[Pressure]

The execution of your strategy provably made all that shyt WORSE and yet you're ignorantly trying to claim those objectives as a reason to follow your strategy.

Are you claiming AQ has had more success in attacking Americans since 2011?