Would you take the shot on Zawahiri?
U.S. Drone Strike Said to Have Killed Ayman al-Zawahri, Top Qaeda Leader
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
I keep saying it, but I'm increasingly understanding of how all these Neo-cons turned from Trotskyites to neocons in the 60s and 70s.
The western left has its head up its ass when it comes to OTHER non-americas bad actors
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Sure, I mean we’re getting really abstract to justify the life of *check notes* the Emir of AlQaeda and reportedly the mastermind behind some of their greatest attacks in the world. I suspect AQ has caused their fair share of ptsd around the world including in Afghanistan where I believe they had quite the bombing campaign alongside the Taliban.
I think an RQ9 seems pretty tame in the grand scheme of things don’t you?
Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
On another note it’s wild that Zawahiri played a role in assassinating Sadat.
I suspect they both read a lot of theory
I suspect they both read a lot of theory
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
What does that have to do with what was previously said?
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Because blowing up civilians, calling them colleratal damage, and claiming that makes it acceptable, didn't create new terrorists from those who survived or were related to the dead? Ok, sure. If you say so.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Zawahiri the civilian was martyred?
You think the household of Zawahiri and Haqqani is susceptible to terrorism?
Note that I was posting the exact response of Afghan residents to this exact incident. And in the "grand scheme of things", the USA doesn't limit themselves to such targets and thus acting like there is a particular line they stop at is disingenuous. We're talking about this attack because it drew enough Western attention to allow violence against those other Brown people to make the mainstream news for once, but it's one of, what, 20,000 drone strikes at least that have been confirmed?
I just checked and at least 439 military strikes were openly declared by the US military in 2021 (that's air/artillery/missile strikes in addition to drones), which is an improvement over nearly 1,000 the year before. But clearly we have no policy of limiting such actions to al-Zawahiri's level of target, or else the average Afghan civilian wouldn't be so terrified of us. Unfortunately, we're also so ridiculously non-transparent about our attacks that it's difficult to say exactly how many there have even been or how many people have been killed by them.
And as Noah Rothman, a conservative commentator with no qualms about violence has observed, the attack was basically meaningless in preventing future operations and may in fact, like some previous assassinations, simply lead to the rise of a more effective, more violent leader:
While the justice brought down on al-Zawahiri is welcome, it is unlikely to do much to disrupt global Islamist terrorist operations. As The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood observed, the 9/11 plotter was a “black hole of charisma.” His ministerial demeanor failed to rouse the passions of would-be jihadists as, for example, the Islamic State’s more provocative propagandists do. Given Al Qaeda’s decentralization, al-Zawahiri’s death is unlikely even to disrupt its operations.
No civilian was killed here.
There was no collateral damage.
So again, this is fantasyland. You were hoping the drone strike Had collateral damage.
You were hoping this would be a humanitarian disaster.
It wasn't.
So instead of trying to force the issue here, wait until there is a valid complaint.
As it stands drown strikes in Afghanistan are at a 2 decade low over the last 12 months.
The same goes for collateral damage from us led strikes.
In a related note that just came out which is so little covered that I hadn't heard a peep about it, the infamous Rann bombing in Nigeria near the end of Obama's term may have been a US operation as well involving our drones. I've talked about that before as a colossal Nigerian Air Force fukk-up and human rights catastrophe, but according to The Intercept it may actually have been a joint US-Nigeria operation that has never been acknowledged.
For those who don't know, the Rann incident was the bombing of a well-known refugee camp in Nigeria by the Nigerian Air Force. At least 115 civilians died including 6 Red Cross aid workers, though many suspect the true death toll to be higher. There were no "legitimate targets" in the area.
en.wikipedia.org
This is what The Intercept is reporting about US involvement, which I haven't seen confirmed outside of them but would not be at all out of character for our government:
theintercept.com
THE UNITED STATES played an unacknowledged role in the 2017 bombing of an internally displaced persons’ camp in Nigeria that killed more than 160 civilians, many of them children.
A surveillance plane circled above the Rann IDP camp, which housed 43,000 people and was controlled by the Nigerian military, before a jet arrived and bombed the area where people draw water from a borehole, survivors of the attack said. The jet then circled and dropped another bomb on the tents of displaced civilians sheltering there.
The Nigerian air force expressed regret for carrying out the airstrike, which also killed nine aid workers and seriously wounded more than 120 people. But the attack was referred to as an instance of “U.S.-Nigerian operations” in a formerly secret U.S. military document obtained exclusively by The Intercept.
Evidence suggests that the U.S. launched a near unprecedented internal investigation of the attack because it secretly provided intelligence or other support to the Nigerian armed forces, a contribution hinted at by Nigerian military officials at the time. The U.S. inquiry, the existence of which has not been previously reported, was ordered by the top American general overseeing troops in Africa and was specifically designed to avoid questions of wrongdoing or recommendations for disciplinary action, according to the document.
The full article describes a complete clusterfukk of both methodology and results of US strikes not just in Nigeria but across our dozens of active combat zones, including other similar mass casualty events due to bombings undertaken with US support.
For those who don't know, the Rann incident was the bombing of a well-known refugee camp in Nigeria by the Nigerian Air Force. At least 115 civilians died including 6 Red Cross aid workers, though many suspect the true death toll to be higher. There were no "legitimate targets" in the area.
Rann bombing - Wikipedia
This is what The Intercept is reporting about US involvement, which I haven't seen confirmed outside of them but would not be at all out of character for our government:
U.S. Played Secret Role in Nigeria Attack That Killed More Than 160 Civilians
The 2017 bombing of a displaced persons’ camp was termed a “U.S.-Nigerian” operation, according to a document obtained by The Intercept.
theintercept.com
THE UNITED STATES played an unacknowledged role in the 2017 bombing of an internally displaced persons’ camp in Nigeria that killed more than 160 civilians, many of them children.
A surveillance plane circled above the Rann IDP camp, which housed 43,000 people and was controlled by the Nigerian military, before a jet arrived and bombed the area where people draw water from a borehole, survivors of the attack said. The jet then circled and dropped another bomb on the tents of displaced civilians sheltering there.
The Nigerian air force expressed regret for carrying out the airstrike, which also killed nine aid workers and seriously wounded more than 120 people. But the attack was referred to as an instance of “U.S.-Nigerian operations” in a formerly secret U.S. military document obtained exclusively by The Intercept.
Evidence suggests that the U.S. launched a near unprecedented internal investigation of the attack because it secretly provided intelligence or other support to the Nigerian armed forces, a contribution hinted at by Nigerian military officials at the time. The U.S. inquiry, the existence of which has not been previously reported, was ordered by the top American general overseeing troops in Africa and was specifically designed to avoid questions of wrongdoing or recommendations for disciplinary action, according to the document.
The full article describes a complete clusterfukk of both methodology and results of US strikes not just in Nigeria but across our dozens of active combat zones, including other similar mass casualty events due to bombings undertaken with US support.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
What else is a guy on the street going to say? I’m sure they knew it was a Taliban house. I don’t take issue with what he said.
In the context we didn’t send a wing of B-52s, chemical weapons, nuclear bombs, and etc. Hell it wasn’t even a heavy guided bomb that flattened the house or block.
Yeah drones and the like are a result of what you bring up later the decentralized nature of terror groups. It’s never going to be perfect or good or transparent but the alternatives aren’t acceptable either apparently unless doing nothing is preferable which presents its own problems.
439 beats 1000 for sure I would imagine a lot that was due to Syria/Iraq in both years due to ISIS etc. Should we have not stopped ISIS? I’m not trying to be funny btw.
I don’t think killing Zawahiri is going to be the end of AQ or terrorism. I do think that letting him reestablish himself without constraints or fear in Afghanistan could’ve resulted in him having a freer hand to do what he’s done in the past. For Biden or the US government to have not acted it would be a betrayal and liability. There really is no downside granted the strike was successful.
None of this matters when your guiding principle thy the actions of terrorist exist merely as a response to us imperialism and David had to do whatever he can do to stun Goliath
Oh, look, @Pressure has once again decided that his modus operandi in a conversation is going to be to lie about me.
I have NEVER supported terrorist actions or stated they are justified. Only one of us in this conversation is pro-violence.
And its an unintentionally ironic strawman you've created when your side's actual argument is that Goliath is justified in doing whatever is necessary, regardless of the effects on entire populations of civilians, until he's killed every last "David".
I'm not even talking about you. I've been talking about masterminds setup and it's clear..
but I quoted you. You can Respond to that.
But you want my attention on this subject, so here it is:
From my professional experience the US learned his location, worked with assets in the region who gave them the conclusion that the Taliban would not handle this themselves, were told they believed this would be a disaster if the US attempted a targeted drone strike in the capital, and we answered the call.
We're no longer operating under shock and awe. So there's a reason why Obama and Biden were able to take out the top architects of 9/11 without it being a total cluster fukk.
I ask you this question. How do you feel they should have handled this?
This framing of the question creates the exact same kind of tunnel-visioned compartmentalization that leads to forever wars in the first place. In the real world, it never actually "stops".
The USA justifies all the violence in Iraq cause, as you say, they just had to "stop" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and ISIS, though al-Baghdadi had only been able to come to power and bring Isis to its greatest heights because the USA just had to "stop" Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who themselves had only brought Isis to the role of dominant insurgent group in Iraq when the USA made sure to "stop" Al-Queda-in-Iraq by killing al-Zarqawi, who himself had been able to form the group solely due to his presence in US occupation prisons and was in a position to arm the group due to the violence we brought cause we just had to "stop" Saddam, who himself was armed in the midst of the violence we brought cause we just had to "stop" Khomeini, whose power was created in the midst of the violence we brought cause we just had to "stop" Mosaddegh....
Just like the power of the Taliban and thus Al-Queda in Afghanistan was created in the midst of the Afghan civil wars which were the result of us arming a lot of despicable people cause we just had to "stop" the Soviets, who of course had been our former allies who we happily helped fight (eventually increasing their global power for several generations) cause we just had to "stop" Hitler, who of course gained power as a result of the repercussions of WW1 when we just had to "stop" the Germans.
Pol Pot got his power cause we decided that Sihanouk was the bad guy and we had to get rid of him.
Isis and the other warlords and terrorists of Libya gained their power cause we decided Gaddafi was the bad guy and had to get rid of him.
Mobutu came to power because we decided Lumumba was the bad guy and we had to get rid of him.
Banzer got power cause we decided Torres was the bad guy and we had to get rid of him.
Castro got power because we decided Socarrás was the bad guy and we had to get rid of him.
Pinochet got power because we decided Allende was the bad guy and we had to get rid of him.
The ugly military junta that rules Myanmar to this day is there in part because we felt the Chinese communists were the bad guys and thus supported the Kuomintang campaign in an effort to get rid of them.
Ethiopia and Eritrea. Angola. Damn near every nation of significance in Central America and the Caribbean. All saw violence come to their nations downstream of renowned American leaders supporting violent conflicts in their nations which led, predictably, to even more violence.
The point of all that is that American powermongers have shown that they have for-shyt ability to project the future implications of their violent actions or predict whether their violent actions will "stop" violence or in fact create much more of it. Sometimes we kill a few violent leaders (and a few thousand innocent civilians in the process), and get a period of relatively more calm in the follow-up. Sometimes just the opposite happens. We never appear to substantially rethink whether the ugly track record of our interventions and questionable moral authority in carrying them out might lead to more long-term harm than good. Instead we're continuously caught up in the present moment. The USA has the most powerful and capable force for violence in world history, and when you have such a fantastic hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
At what point do the unintended consequences amount to enough suffering that you will at least consider whether there may be some other, better way?