Al-Qaida No. 2 killed in Pakistan: U.S.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
51 Comments
Login to comment
0
paulinusa
Did Pakistan officially respond to this? You have to think they're aware of what happened. Anyway, continue the drone attacks and the world will be a safer place.
-1
Serrano
What's up with all these al-Qaida guys in Pakistan?
0
Elbuda Mexicano
I wonder if David Letterman will use this for his next top 10 lists or if these Al Qaeda will still try to kill him for making jokes about Al Qaeda??
1
some14some
How many number two's in Al Qaida?.. ..as usual it takes years to capture/kill No. 1
0
Virtuoso
Serrano, what space ship did you just disembark from? Or to put it another way, haven't you read a newspaper since around November 2001?
-2
Asagao
These drone attacks are a violation of international law. The UN should put sanctions on the US, banning any country for buying their weapons and freezing American assets. How many civilians are killed, and suspected targets killed without facing any kind of trial. The same rednecks who back this despicable method of terrorism are quick to criticise suicide bombers, but the drone attacks are morally worse. Shame on the UN.
0
anglootaku
Great documentary on 911 is called 'Loose Change' you can watch it free on youtube or on video.google.com
-2
globalwatcher
We are too busy with Eileen. This has not been reported in US yet.
2
Laguna
Oh? And how would that be - please elaborate on the moral superiority of those who deliberately attack civilians over those who attempt to stop such attacks, though perhaps killing innocents in the process.
I agree that it would be nice to stop such attacks, but that would take cooperation with authorities who control areas where these people mass. That is why such attacks are not conducted in Britain or Turkey, but are in Pakistan and Somalia. As such, it also provides an incentive for both residents of these areas and local political leaders to get with the program.
Not pretty, sure, but the world is not a particularly pretty place.
-1
Spidapig24
LagunaAUG. 28, 2011 - 07:03PM JST
And how do you propose the local political leaders get with the program when the US keeps bombing and killing civilians in their areas. Thereby creating more enemies and people that hate the US.
-2
Oracle
LagunaAug. 28, 2011 - 07:03PM JST
Yeah, the U.S. and its coalition allies would NEVER deliberately attack civilians. Sure. You keep telling yourself that. What it boils down to is that the U.S. and the coalition are good at making excuses and the sheep back home are even better at believing them.
We may target civilians less, but, I am afraid that accidentally/ on purpose killing people with mechanical monstronsitiies in an area we should have left years ago does not reallly give the west a moral highground. It would be a moral step ladder at best. All we have done is perpetuate the madness. In fact, the whole reason the Taliban now has control of Waziristan is because we pushed them out of Afghanistan! All we had to do was hit al-Quaida and leave. Instead we made direct war on the Taliban. That was stupid. Doubly stupid as everybody knows a "modern" military cannot succeed in Afghanistan. Its even worse than the jungle.
2
Serrano
Virtuoso - Heh heh you must learn to read between the lines. To make it a bit clearer: Why does the U.S. continue to give billions of doallrs in aid to a government that basically harbors terrorists on its soil?
Asagao: "These drone attacks are a violation of international law"
I've read some posts which are a violation of common sense.
0
SuperLib
How many civilians has the US killed with drone attacks?
0
sailwind
They don't deliberately attack civilians. If they do "deliberately attack civilians" its called a war crime and the perpetrators go to prison for a very long time after the court martial. Or is our ROE (rules of engagement) just something to be ignored and not is not actually adhered to?
-1
Spidapig24
SuperLib
How many does it need to kill for people to become anti US. I would say for every one then you get an angry family / vil;age / tribe. But l know thats hard for you to understand
2
Virtuoso
@Serrano: It's hard to read between lines when you only wrote one line! And I don't see any correlation between your initial comment and the explanation you provided. But thanks for the clarification. I suppose the US sends aid to Pakistan because Americans are terrified that if the government collapses Pak's nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of people who would not hesitate to use them. I am not saying I agree with that policy, but it's the only explanation I can come up with.
-1
Oracle
sailwindAug. 28, 2011 - 09:43PM JST
Right. They always get caught. Always.
Look, it might not be part of the grand strategy, but really any old excuse will do, such as well, they were armed, therefore, they were militants. We never hear of armed civilians getting killed do we? Tell me they don't exist.
Also, every time a house is targeted, civilians are targeted. You say the Taliban targets civilians when they target a marketplace. Would it be any different if they said "Well, we had intel that American soldiers shopped there."? No. You would give them no excuse. But when a predator drone blows up the house of militant X along with his wife and kids, what do you say? Oh, but the wife and kids were not targeted! Um, uh, collateral damage! Peace! I think a lot of people in Afghanistan are not buying the bullcrap. Neither am I. And the fact that so much of it is done by faceless drone jocks in Langley is not helping matters either.
1
Oracle
sailwindAug. 28, 2011 - 09:43PM JST
I am sure the only figures we have available, the one provided by the U.S. military, are totally accurate...at least until we get a fresh wikileak.
Look. Most of us anti-war people are not asking for trials and nooses. We are just pointing these things out because we want the U.S. and coalition to withdraw already. Some of us have studied U.S. military history and see a lot of bullcrap. Don't tell us this is 2011 and that's all ancient history. The bullcrap just keeps repeating.
2
SuperLib
No, I was being serious. I'm curious as if you know how many civilians the US has killed in Pakistan. I'm betting if you chose a number it would be wildly inaccurate.
Overall the drone program has been extremely successful. Civilian casualties are extremely low, especially when compared to the civilians the terrorists have killed. And not only in Pakistan, but in Afghanistan and India as well. That's why a moderate like Obama has increased the number of drone strikes greatly. They're effective, and the strikes are done with the support of the Pakistani government who often share intelligence on where to strike. Obviously they have to pretend to be outraged to placated their uneducated masses and as a side effect liberals and anti-Americans use that silly position as some kind of evidence of wrongdoing, but the fact is that drone strikes basically kick ass, they don't create nearly the amount of damage that the enemy does on civilians, and they will continue and hopefully increase. And the increase in anger that you feel about the situation is mostly icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.
0
SuperLib
You can want the US to withdraw, but using fantasy evidence and positions isn't going to bring that about. It's just going to make you frustrated that no one is buying your bullshit. Do you have the numbers yourself? Why not tell us what you think the number is off the top of your head, then do some research and find out how close you are to the reported numbers from a variety of sources.
2
Wolfpack
@Oracle:
It's not very likely that you will get many other Liberals to agree with you since the drone attacks are a key part of President Obama's strategy in Pakistan. Even Conservatives understand that Obama's expansion of Bush's use of drone's in the war against terrorists has been successful. The drone attacks have been successful for many years and have been deliberately targeted at terrorist targets. Suicide bombers on the other hand, are deliberately targeting civilians. Is it really that hard to understand the difference?
-5
Asagao
@laugana "though perhaps killing innocents in the process." that says it all. "get with the program"...become a Christian or die?
2
HonestDictator
There is always going to be a "number one" and "number two". I mean they keep replacing whoever was the previous #1 and #2 so there will always be a report like this about every month or so.
0
Madverts
Well Honest, I'd like to add "since President Obama's gutsy take-down of Mr No.1" to your last, only that will really cause froth for JT's fringe-right glieratti.
Other than the so-called al-Qaida in Iraq I suppopse, which has had more leaders than a UN conference since Saddam.
-2
Oracle
SuperLibAug. 29, 2011 - 12:22AM JST
As opposed to your U.S. military press releases??
Who do you think is running around Afghanistan counting bodies? Who grills those dead people with clever interrogation to determine if they were militants or kids with sticks that looked like handguns if the shadows were just right?
As I said, the US military history is filled with bullcrap, and it repeats itself. Those who don't know history are doomed to allow others to repeat it.
0
Spidapig24
SuperLib
Well the number that keeps coming up is between 1600 and 2500. So as l said even if we take the lower number thats 1600 people killed, 1600 people whos family and friends, neighbours, and villagers who would have a hate on the US for killing their friends and loved ones. Thats 1600 peoples deaths who may have inspired people to help the groups opposed to the US.
As will anger against the US every time your missile goes off target and kills some innocent civilian.
And what increase in anger would that be? If you as a nation want to go around bombing your allies and killing civilians (yes even minimal numbers) then next time someone decides to fly a plane into your buildings or attack your embassies or nearly sink your warships dont come crying to the rest of the world for help because frankly you bring this on yourself. One would have hoped that after 60 years of military blundering you would realise as a military and a nation where you are going wrong. But it seems that you do not learn from the past so therefore are doomed to repeat it over and over again. Personally you can blow up who you want were you want when you want but dont drag the rest of the world into your disasters and dont come crying when your lifestyle is attacked.
-1
SuperLib
Why don't you just come out and say you have absolutely no idea how many civilians are killed, and you may in fact be expressing outrage over numbers so small your entire position would look silly when compared to the damage terrorists are doing overall in numerous neighboring countries as well as Pakistan itself?
-1
SuperLib
Can you elaborate? Is that the total number of people killed by drone strikes? That's close to the total numbers that I've seen. Or is that the total number of civilians killed by US forces in Pakistan? Or the total number of people killed, including militants? And what is the time frame?
Obviously they're angry. You seem to think that I'm denying that. But bigger picture issues dictate that being there is better than not being there and I have my own civilian data to back it up. I saw the video of a cop in Oakland shooting an unarmed man in the back but my first thought wasn't that we need to fire all police officers and I didn't go around telling people who disagreed with me that they obviously don't care about what that man's family is going through. The militants kill far, far more civilians than the US does so why don't you think about their families? Why are the larger numbers completely ignored in your posts?
Last I checked the militants put planes into buildings because we sat on our asses and did nothing while they had free reign of an entire nation, which is the policy you're advocating but just can't seem to see that. And last I checked the militants are attacking just about everyone, including Pakistanis, Europeans, Asians, etc., so I guess they went around attacking people but we just haven't heard about it yet. I'm guessing when the Taliban behead schoolgirls you ignore the families and shake your fingers at the girls for bringing it on themselves.
-4
BreitbartVictorious
The far left's sympathy for and defense of suicide bombers is creepy.
1
Spidapig24
SuperLib
The figure l gave is drone attacks only. It does not include people killed by the militants. And the time frame is 2004 up to Aug 2011.
They are not ignored in my posts at all. In fact l admit around 35,000 people have been killed in terror attacks inside Pakistan. The interesting thing is though that the number of terror attacks in Pakistan has more than doubled from before 9/11. Prior to 9/11 most terror attacks in Pakistan where sectarian attacks. After 9/11 the Pakistanis also had to deal with Al Qaida and Taliban attacks which more than doubled the numbers.
Yes they did put their planes into the buildings. But did it start there? Thats like a Japanese person saying WW2 started with the A bombs.... Who armed Al Qaida? The US. Who built their infrastructure in Afghanistan (Tora Bora etc)? the CIA. Who had been fighting and bombing muslim nations trying to kill Al Qaida for years before 9/11. So yes they did put a couple of planes into buildings killing a couple of thousand Americans. But let me ask you this, how many civilians had and has the US killed before 9/11 and after 9/11. How many cruise missile, drone strikes, air strikes have been launched killing innocents? I am not saying give them a free reign, they need to be gotten rid of l totally agree, but what l am saying is for every civilian you kill you are potentially giving the bad guys a willing recruit. For every innocent that dies assume that of all their friends, family and acquaintances one or two go over and start helping the insurgents. Then its a lost battle.
Well you guess wrong
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Complete nonsense. AQ was formed around 1989.
1
Spidapig24
BreitbartVictorious
Indeed AQ was formed around '89, however a large portion of the framework, funding, arming and personal came about as a result of US, Pakistani, Saudi support of the insurgents in the Afghan war. Or are you denying the fact that your country helped form the very organization you have been trying to destroy for years? As for my comments about Tora Bora as an example, you deny the US assisted in their construction?
1
Oracle
SuperLibAug. 29, 2011 - 09:17AM JST
I have no idea how many civilians are killed by U.S. forces. But at the very least I count all civilian deaths as indirectly caused by the presence of U.S. forces.
Since you just refuse to understand that numbers are not all that matters here, you will never get it. Does it give you pleasure to be dismissive? Or to basically agree that we don't know and then be two faced and pretend the numbers are "so small"?
I think it is impossible to have a good enough INDEPENDENT source for this sort of information. People used to take what Lancet said without question for example, but then one day they questioned the U.S. military and SUDDENLY, their methods were hocus pocus. Some of us take note of these things you know.
Just who are you trusting? What are your numbers? How are those numbers small enough that the Afghans are going to overlook or forgive them?
0
Oracle
SuperLibAug. 29, 2011 - 09:34AM JST
Last I checked it was not militants who controlled a nation, but a terrorist group we had known about since even before the first WTC bombing in 93. Last I checked that group got in for people sitting on ther behinds doing nothing (even suspiciously so), which was to not do anything about intel they had both international and on people right there in the U.S. , rather than go bomb some countries. In fact, I hope your rather poor hindsight does not make you believe that it would have only been Afghanistan we would have to attack. How about Yemen, North Korea, Iran, Libya, China, etc? No, I hardly think pre-emptively attacking countries will give us more security. In fact, 9/11 happened in part because of U.S. meddling and hegemony. No, most of the people who died did not deserve that fate, but some did, and so did many more who escaped. But you cannot expect a terrorist group to get its targets straight. What GWB did, you may suffer for.
-1
SuperLib
You feel they need to be gotten rid of? Why is that?
There's no denial, just wondering what your point is. I suppose you have some way in which the Russians wouldn't take over the area while at the same time taking out OBL because he might turn against us decades later in response to freeing Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion? I'd like to hear your perfect path that the US should have taken that would have produced zero blowback while at the same time produced a workable result for the situations at hand when they happened.
You're looking back with hindsight and pretending these things should have been known at the time which just isn't possible. If you want to keep going back in time and playing the blame game then you'd be going around telling everyone the Russians created Al Queda since they triggered the invasion that triggered X which triggered Y which triggered Z....
0
SuperLib
Then you have no position.
1
Spidapig24
SuperLib
Why do you say it isnt possible. Try picking up a history book once in a while and see what you learn. Lets look at the US military action. It is effectively the same strategy as used in Vietnam. Control the cities, control the air and bomb the insurgents. Train up local forces to take over from your own troops. Did that tactic work then? No will it work now? No. Look at Afghanistan itself, has it even been conquered? No. Has it ever really been one unified country? No. Will it now? No.
See just by looking at the past most can see the trend of where mistakes have been made and continue to be made. Jeez even some of the top US military people can see the trend but you cant?
YEAH YEAH whatever. I just realised with you its never the US's fault so move one you just will never get it. Discussion over.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Likewise you have no idea how many lives have been saved by the US-led ouster of the Taliban.
1
SuperLib
SpidaPig24....what....you don't like me blaming the Russians? I actually kind of like the idea. I just used your logic and went back one step. I don't see why you'd have a problem with it. No invasion, no resistance, no OBL, etc. Thanks for that.
0
Oracle
SuperLibAug. 29, 2011 - 02:20PM JST
Not being able know an unknowable will not prevent me having a postion about things that can be infered through history both old and very very recent as well as being able to read between the lines of news reports and also knowing what happens when you drop bombs from remote control robots from half a world away, and have men not old enough to legally drink beer running around with guns in a foreign country.
But if you want to make such a stupid statement as that, don't be surprised when it comes back to haunt you.
0
sailwind
Oracle,
On using drones by the U.S Military to conduct the war on terror. I understand that you've never been in the Military and do not understand Military doctrine or reasoning or ever led men and woman in combat or a war zone and had to make decisions that if proven to be wrong gets those under your command killed or wounded. Therefore I will put this into a context that you can relate to and understand outside of a military context but in an also no less dangerous and potential life threatening circumstance where you are in charge.
You are the regional Commander for the Northern California wildfire district. You have over 200 firefighters at your disposal. They range from 150 traditional firefighters with support trucks and hoses and fifty 'smokejumpers' that can be airlifted and inserted in remote areas without any real support if the wind shifts where the fire is raging and our pretty much on their own to attack it using by making firebreaks and fighting the hot spots before they flare up and out of control. You also have have three aircraft at your disposal that can dump tons of fire retardant on those very same hot spot areas.
Do you use those aircraft first to hit the fire at the remote hotspots and only insert your smoke-jumpers just ahead of your traditional firefighters so that they do have support behind them just in case they have to evacuate the area if the fire gets out of control? As this greatly minimizes the risk and the possible loss of life to your men and woman?
Or do you just dump them in the remote area and not use your aircraft at all, therefore increasing greatly the chance that after the wildfire is out, you're writing letters to the families of the smoke jumpers as to how you got your men and woman killed by not using your "drone" aircraft in the mission, the very aircraft that you had available and decided not to use after all.
Your call....
I do hope that you might now be able to relate to this on a more realistic plane and what is really at stake here. That is saving American Servicemen and women's lives and the best to protect it while bringing the fight to the enemies front door no matter what shadows they hide under.
0
Oracle
Well Sailwind, apparently you think the people of Afghanistan are just fires to be put out. What a revealing analogy.
Well, either that or just forgot the most important part of the mission, and that is to keep certain parts of the fire burning while extinquishing certain other parts of it. And if you don't think that is the most important part of the mission, then you don't understand why we have been over there 10 years and still are not winning.
In case you have not noticed, the military is now stepping up the roll of soldiers and conducting more raids with living soldiers. This is exactly as I suggested.
Mind you, I don't think that will work either, but its got more odds of working than so callously and from a safe distance extinquishing the fires that are the lives of Afghani civlians without even a soldier there with a look of deep regret written on his face. Not that I even think such an expression is common on the mugs of our would-be hazing, would -be college frat boys, but at least its possible.
0
SuperLib
The drone attacks, like the ones in this article, are taking place in Pakistan. I'm guessing your reference to soldiers is talking more about Afghanistan.
0
HonestDictator
@Oracle you did miss the point, Pakistan has not officially allowed US/NATO forces as in "manpower" to walk into their territory. So the only "official" option is to use the drones which Pakistan has allowed under many circumstances. And the scary thing is I remember watching on a PBS documentary that some Pakistan officials wondered why the didn't carpetbomb the lot instead of the "precision" strikes. "I don't understand why the Americans can't just wipe them all out..." Uh, okay they kinda missed the part where we're not supposed to be blindly killing civilians. So the US has to resort to as precise an attack as they can get and hope there aren't any innocent bystanders near or around (or even in) the viable target. So until the day that someone can create a psychic smart bomb that can read the target enemies minds or Pakistan allows soldiers to be sent inside their borders we'll just have to keep putting up with these situations.
0
HonestDictator
The best weapon any country can have is intelligence. And not every bit of information that comes in is good... one has to find out who will be where and when, then they have to try and verify that information without being caught, then they have to hope they can get the target without further incident. Seems like many people its possible to have a mystical magical wonderland where EVERYTHING goes without a hitch... And if they believe that then they surely need to try to do it themselves.
-1
Oracle
@HonestDictator Why don't you accuse Sailwind of missing the point? It was HIS analogy! Oh, I see. Basically you are on his side, and yes, we certainly must take sides and attack those viewed as the opposition. No. No. Much better you use that to try and make me look bad.
Meanwhile, Superlib picks out fringe details to be picky about. Nice. How very helpful. Hint: I meant the who danged regional conflict on the Taliban and their allies.
Back to you HonestDictator. Drone attacks that are not approved are as bad as raids on that score. And whether Pakistan claims parts of Waziristan or not, they have lost control anyway. It would be a far cry from our little raid in Abbottabad. Raids are better, all around, unless the goal is to lose the conflict.
0
sailwind
Raids are better, all around, unless the goal is to lose the conflict.
Oracle,
I must ask have you really thought through your position? What if the raid goes bad. Do you remember Blackhawk Down in Somalia? The videos of dead American troops being dragged through the streets? What about if American prisoners are taken? Parade them through the streets and release the video? Do you think the Geneva conventions are going to honored? Or do we got another beheading video just like they did to Daniel Pearl?
Have you really thought about the real risks involved between the ability to use a drone to accomplish the mission or a raid using live troops to accomplish it?
0
Spidapig24
sailwind
Just out of curiosity do you know the reasons behind the story of Blackhawk Down and why the raid went bad? Maybe you should look it up? rather than lecturing people on something you obviously know nothing about.
Are the US following the Geneva conventions? And given that they are not fitting a nations army but a insurgent group why do you expect them to follow those rules who is governing them to ensure they do?
You and l actually agree here. Either way with the trigger happy US troops you are going to end up with dead civilians either way. But with a drone the enemy has no way to strike back so they then strike the next best target (civilians, planes, soft targets)
0
sailwind
Maybe you look up how Blackhawk Down inspired and convinced Osama Bin Laden that the U.S was a paper tiger that couldn't accept losses of her soldiers. It went a long way to convincing him to go ahead with the Sept 11th attack. Google 1998 ABC interview Bin Laden. For the record I know quite a bit about BlackHawk down and how it inspired the terrorists to be even bolder in their attacks.
No offense...Drone or no drone they are going to strike soft targets anyway that is why they are called terrorists in the first place.
-1
Oracle
sailwindAug. 30, 2011 - 09:13PM JST
No, drones are how you make militants into terrorists. Militants can be convinced to fight if they think they have targets ie soldiers. If their buddies keep getting killed by robots they will attack civilians more. And if soldiers kill the wrong people, villagers can blame the soldiers. But if robots kill people its far easier to blame all Americans, since you saw no one. The drones are begging for terrorism in response.
0
BreitbartVictorious
oracle
Just odd.
Back to top