Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri


PDA






rick_reno
January 13, 2006, 10:46 PM
10 missiles - I hope one of them flew up his behind.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842035/

U.S. officials told NBC News on Friday that American airstrikes in Pakistan overnight Thursday were aimed at the No. 2 man in the al-Qaida terror organization — Ayman al-Zawahri.

One official said intelligence indicated a strong possibility that Zawahri was in the Pakistani village at the time of the airstrike, but there is no confirmation that he was killed.

Pakistani officials say U.S. aircraft, apparently CIA Predator drones, fired as many as 10 missiles at the residential compound.

Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

The attack came in the Bajur region of Northwest Pakistan, along the Afghanistan border.

The CIA Predators carry as many as four Hellfire missiles. Only last month, the CIA used a Predator to kill the No. 3 man in al-Qaida in a similar Hellfire strike in Pakistan.

Killing Zawahri would be a major psychological victory for the United States in its war on terrorism. Zawahri, not Osama bin Laden, has emerged recently as the chief operator for al-Qaida.

While some remains were reportedly recovered from the site of the attack, there was still no confirmation Friday night that Zawahri was among the dead. An intelligence official told NBC that it does have a sample of Zawahri's DNA.

“Anyone who tells you there is clarity on whether he [Zawahri] was killed ... do not take what they are saying as gospel,” a senior U.S. official said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Malone LaVeigh
January 14, 2006, 12:44 AM
I hope one of them flew up his behind.
Along with the women and children, that is.

Kim
January 14, 2006, 01:02 AM
They just had some pictures of the bomb site on CNN> Saw a big hole and a dead cow. PETA will be upset.:neener:

EVIL5LITER
January 14, 2006, 01:42 AM
Is Zawahari the same thing as Zaqwari, or whatever his name is?

itgoesboom
January 14, 2006, 01:45 AM
Is Zawahari the same thing as Zaqwari, or whatever his name is?

Nope, one is in Iraq, and one is in Afghanistan.

Two different terrorists.

Zarqawi will get his soon enough......

I.G.B.

GigaBuist
January 14, 2006, 01:47 AM
Is Zawahari the same thing as Zaqwari, or whatever his name is?

That can't be -- we've killed Zaqwari about 8 times now. This must be a different person.

The US is pretty good, but it's REALLY hard to kill a guy more than 8 times.

itgoesboom
January 14, 2006, 01:57 AM
That can't be -- we've killed Zaqwari about 8 times now. This must be a different person.

The US is pretty good, but it's REALLY hard to kill a guy more than 8 times.


BREAKING NEWS

"In late breaking news this afternoon, reports are in that US forces in Iraq have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a apparant bombing......ummm, wait, we just have confirmation, it wasn't al-Zarqawi, it was another Arab with a funny name.....well, hell, they all look the same to the predator drones when they carry AK-47s."

:evil:

I.G.B.

rick_reno
January 14, 2006, 02:14 AM
That can't be -- we've killed Zaqwari about 8 times now. This must be a different person.

The US is pretty good, but it's REALLY hard to kill a guy more than 8 times.

I wish it were possible to kill these monsters more than once. Once isn't enough for some people, and these animals fall into that bucket.

CAPTAIN MIKE
January 14, 2006, 02:53 AM
I agree - we should worry less about how to spell either of these two guys' names, and focus on taking them out --> or better yet, capturing them and letting an appropriate ally "extract" useful information before we ask John Kerry and his friends to give them the keys to the city.

beltslide
January 14, 2006, 05:15 AM
I wish it were possible to kill these monsters more than once. Once isn't enough for some people, and these animals fall into that bucket.

+1

Cosmoline
January 14, 2006, 05:19 AM
This is the Dr.--OBL's No. 2 and the guy literally at his right hand in many videos. He's a smart and well educated man, from a very wealthy Egyptian family. He was directly behind the planning of 9/11, and according to some sources masterminded the operation. It would be very good to kill him. Frankly we should have started carpet bombing this section of Pakistan long ago. The tribes there have been sheltering Taliban and AQ since 2002, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to move against them.

beerslurpy
January 14, 2006, 05:42 AM
I heard Zarqawi died like 5 years ago and he isnt actually operating in iraq. Which is why he doesnt appear in any videos over there.

Waitone
January 14, 2006, 06:26 AM
If you consider OBL as Elvis, Zawahiri is Col. Tom Parker. OBL is the front man, Z is the operational brains behind Elvis. Good all over'em if Z is goo'd.

Mad Chemist
January 14, 2006, 06:28 AM
This is the Dr.--OBL's No. 2 and the guy literally at his right hand in many videos. He's a smart and well educated man, from a very wealthy Egyptian family. He was directly behind the planning of 9/11, and according to some sources masterminded the operation. It would be very good to kill him. Frankly we should have started carpet bombing this section of Pakistan long ago. The tribes there have been sheltering Taliban and AQ since 2002, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to move against them.

Quite correct. It's believed that he's the main operational mastermind. OBL served mainly as a talking head for the movement once his finances were depleted. Dr. Zawahri is very bright, pragmatic and exceptionally dangerous. I hope we got him this time.

JH

PCGS65
January 14, 2006, 10:01 AM
We couldn't be so lucky? But if so I'll eat my post!!!

PCGS65
January 14, 2006, 10:04 AM
Just found out the bad news!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack;_ylt=A0SOwmGh9chD_hEBsQys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
I was hoping to eat my post.:fire:

Hawkmoon
January 14, 2006, 12:05 PM
Good news/bad news.

I really don't know how to react to this. On one hand, I'm of the opinion that the U.S. isn't dong a lot to win the hearts and minds of our "allies" as we continue to blow up their citizens in mostly futile attempts to get the bad guys.

On the other hand, if Pakistan is so sure we were acting on bad intelligence ... how's about coming up with some GOOD intelligence? If Pakistan is so certain (after the fact) that they know where these guys aren't, why can't they get a clue as to where they are?

dolanp
January 14, 2006, 01:54 PM
At another destroyed house, Sami Ullah, a 17-year-old student, said 24 of his family members were killed and vowed he would "seek justice from God."

Operation Create More Terrorists successful!!

Lone_Gunman
January 14, 2006, 02:29 PM
I think it is stupid for the US to keep announcing they killed a certain terrorist, before it is actually documented that they killed him.

It makes us, and our military, look inept.

FeebMaster
January 14, 2006, 03:00 PM
I think it is stupid for the US to keep announcing they killed a certain terrorist, before it is actually documented that they killed him.

It makes us, and our military, look inept.

Look?

Nicky Santoro
January 14, 2006, 03:05 PM
Just found out the bad news!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack;_ylt=A0SOwmGh9chD_hEBsQys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
I was hoping to eat my post.:fire:


Pakistan Condemns Purported CIA Airstrike

What are they going to do, stop sending cab drivers to New York City?

Malone LaVeigh
January 14, 2006, 03:49 PM
We won't know for sure for a long time unless we see Zawahri's ugly face on a video clip soon. But so far, this seems to have pissed off our one semi-ally in the region. One with nuclear weapons, at that. Nice going.

longhorngunman
January 14, 2006, 04:52 PM
And what is the CIA and military supposed to do? Turn tail retreat back here and hope for the best, that Islamo-terrorists will have a change of heart and won't attack us anymore, good grief:rolleyes: ! BTW it was the Pakistani's not the CIA that was boasting about the attack and if we did actually get him and new he was dead, would it be better to broadcast that to the world and make him a martyr in the region or would it be better to say "we goofed" everyone goes about their way and we secretly know he won't bother us anymore?

PCGS65
January 14, 2006, 04:59 PM
by Nicky Santoro, What are they going to do, stop sending cab drivers to New York City?
Nick good point. If they did that might cripple NYC more than the recent strikes.LOL

El Tejon
January 15, 2006, 12:56 PM
What to do? Well, for starters, the CIA could learn about Rule #4: ensure of your target and what is behind it.:D

The Christians in Action want to conduct this war by keyboard and have forgotten about human intelligence. Find sources that break bread with the enemy and then kill the enemy with a .22 to the ear.:)

Lone_Gunman
January 15, 2006, 03:29 PM
Remember when Bush said...

"When I take action I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."


Looks like he must have changed his mind.

Biker
January 15, 2006, 03:34 PM
Dunno how many camels he got, but last I heard, he got about 18 men, women and children.
Biker

Lone_Gunman
January 15, 2006, 03:37 PM
Dunno how many camels he got, but last I heard, he got about 18 men, women and children.

I am sure killing their children will make them want to be our friends.

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2006, 03:40 PM
I think it is stupid for the US to keep announcing they killed a certain terrorist, before it is actually documented that they killed him.

It makes us, and our military, look inept.

The "US" didn't announce any of this, the media and their damned "sources".

Read the quote at the end, this is the official position of the US:

“Anyone who tells you there is clarity on whether he [Zawahri] was killed ... do not take what they are saying as gospel,” a senior U.S. official said.

Notice they never use names, it's the typical media thing.

What exactly is a "US official" and a "senior US official"?

They quote the official as saying he's dead and the SENIOR official as saying don't believe it.

So tell me who started this story, the US government? Of course not, it's the fun media ratings game.

Manedwolf
January 15, 2006, 03:42 PM
I am sure killing their children will make them want to be our friends.

It's that "hearts and minds" thing, yes.

If you have kids...suppose a bunch of French or Russian or whatever agents raided your block because a criminal they wanted might be in one of the houses. They bomb it...your home is destroyed, and your children are killed. They don't even apologize...if you try to say anything, they point guns at you and yell at you threateningly.

What would you do, then? What would you feel? You didn't have anything to do with any causes or the criminals involved, but you've lost your family. These people who killed them don't even seem to care. You really don't have anything left to live for.

See why we're making more insurgents every day?

Lone_Gunman
January 15, 2006, 03:44 PM
So tell me who started this story, the US government? Of course not, it's the fun media ratings game.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Do you believe the attack didn't happen?

Do you believe no innocent people were killed?

Biker
January 15, 2006, 03:47 PM
I am sure killing their children will make them want to be our friends.
You bet. Take away everything a man has, and you have a man with nothing to lose except for the desire for revenge. A truly dangerous individual.
The type that might strap on a C-4 vest.
Biker

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 03:48 PM
We are at war Collateral damage happens, that's the nature of the beast. BTW I'd take what the libtard media says with a grain of salt, we might not have gotten the exact one we wanted but we did get several. They did invite Zawahiri to their house which makes them accessories so they got what was coming.

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2006, 03:49 PM
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Do you believe the attack didn't happen?

Do you believe no innocent people were killed?


No, I said that you can't blame the government for the bragging that this or that guy was killed. It's a real shame what happened, but to bang on everyone for the repeated claims that whoever is dead is not the fault of anyone but the media.

And do you know for a fact the exact body count?

How many times did we hear of the "baby formula" factories being bombed during Gulf War I.

All I am saying is that in the fog of war, don't take what either side says as gospel, there is plenty of BS on both sides of the story.

That particular region of Pakistan isn't exactly the most friendly towards the US and is known for harboring terrorists and fugitives.

Lobotomy Boy
January 15, 2006, 03:50 PM
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Do you believe the attack didn't happen?

Do you believe no innocent people were killed?

Blaming the media has always been one of Rove's favorite tactics. If bad things happen as a result of Neocon policies and the media reports these bad things, then the media is bad for reporting bad news.

Not that the media is innocent--catering to the lowest common denominator is inevetible when you combine a free press with a free market economy--but if the media is guilty of anything, it is under-reporting what is going on in the ME. The McLaughlin Group just did a segment on this today. Reports on the Iraqui war are less than 25 percent as common today as they were three years ago, even though January promises to be the bloodiest month in Iraq yet as far as U.S. casualties are concerned.

Manedwolf
January 15, 2006, 04:02 PM
We are at war Collateral damage happens, that's the nature of the beast. BTW I'd take what the libtard media says with a grain of salt, we might not have gotten the exact one we wanted but we did get several. They did invite Zawahiri to their house which makes them accessories so they got what was coming.

1. We still have not had a declaration of war, and we are not at war. The administration has declared war on an idea, terrorism, which is an impossible goal and has no possible resolution, ever. You can wipe out the leaders, like bin Laden, (which we haven't done!) to teach a lesson (we've taught the opposite), and you can address the root causes of terrorism, but you can't win a war against an idea. Even in Iraq, we don't have a war. We have an occupation. We 'won' the brief war when we deposed Sadaam. How do you win a prolonged occupation?

2. The media is not liberal. The media is not conservative. The media is CORPORATE, wholly owned, operated and directed by big conglomerate parent companies that seek ratings and profits. Period.

And as far as encouraging or discourging terrorism, this "collateral damage" is pretty much like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline.

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 04:11 PM
We are not at war? Odd, I'll have to tell my friends and family that are serving overseas that, they have had a differing opinion than yours. BTW a independent study by UCLA no less concluded that newspeople are by far liberal leaning at around a 75% ratio.

Lone_Gunman
January 15, 2006, 04:29 PM
It certainly is not a war in the traditional sense.

How will we tell when the War on Terror is over?

Biker
January 15, 2006, 04:38 PM
It certainly is not a war in the traditional sense.

How will we tell when the War on Terror is over?
When the War On Some Drugs is over.
Biker

Cosmoline
January 15, 2006, 04:44 PM
You bet. Take away everything a man has, and you have a man with nothing to lose except for the desire for revenge. A truly dangerous individual.
The type that might strap on a C-4 vest.
Biker

Reality does not support this notion, I'm afraid. OBL and his captains are almost all from well-educated, wealthy backgrounds. As were most of the 9/11 terrorists. Far from growing up in the ashes of a war, they grew up in first world privilege. Far from having their family members killed by the US, they had family members who did good business with the US. These facts tend to undercut the notion that we can end the struggle between radical Islam and the west by helping them build their education systems and grow their economies.

It's not PC to say it, but to really end this struggle we have to break Islam's spine.

Biker
January 15, 2006, 04:49 PM
No, I'm referring to those who lose their families in attacks such as the recent attack in Pakistan. It's how I would feel and I would act accordingly.
Biker

beerslurpy
January 15, 2006, 04:55 PM
Remember when Bush said...
"When I take action I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."
Looks like he must have changed his mind.

He must have thought that Clinton intentionally missed killing bin laden and instead was aiming for a camel's butt. Because governments never fail to do something through accident or incompetance. Oh wait.

Cosmoline
January 15, 2006, 04:57 PM
No, I'm referring to those who lose their families in attacks such as the recent attack in Pakistan. It's how I would feel and I would act accordingly.
Biker

They ALREADY hate us as infidels and believe as a religious matter that we need to be killed. This minor bombing doesn't change anything one way or the other.

Lobotomy Boy
January 15, 2006, 07:22 PM
They ALREADY hate us as infidels and believe as a religious matter that we need to be killed. This minor bombing doesn't change anything one way or the other.

No, but it certainly reinforces their beliefs and causes moderate Muslims who might be undecided to lean towards their way of thinking.

SIGarmed
January 15, 2006, 07:39 PM
Everytime there is an attack and some bad guys are killed there is somehow only women and children killed. Gee I wonder why?

I mean come on.

:rolleyes:

Biker
January 15, 2006, 07:45 PM
Everytime there is an attack and some bad guys are killed there is somehow only women and children killed. Gee I wonder why?

I mean come on.

:rolleyes:
I believe that the report stated men, women and children.
Biker

McCall911
January 15, 2006, 07:55 PM
Everytime there is an attack and some bad guys are killed there is somehow only women and children killed. Gee I wonder why?

I mean come on.

:rolleyes:

Amen.

I think it pretty much goes without saying that Al Qaida terrorist leadership uses innocents (children, women, the elderly, etc.) as shields against attacks.
It's enough to make you wonder if there's actually any sense of honor amongst people like that.
:fire: :mad:

Lobotomy Boy
January 15, 2006, 07:56 PM
Everytime there is an attack and some bad guys are killed there is somehow only women and children killed. Gee I wonder why?

I mean come on.

Where did you read that it was only women and children? When you try to spin the discussion in a different direction by inserting a word like this, you might distract the more simple-minded reader, but you don't detract from the fact that women and children were killed. Regardless of how you try to spin that fact, it remains a problem.

Guy B. Meredith
January 15, 2006, 07:58 PM
I think it has been reported repeatedly that these people do not meet at soldiers' clubs or some such but in family compounds. Guess who you find in family compounds?

One way to avoid this might be to hit their vehicles during travel as the Israelis have done. Unfortunately I have not heard that they travel in Bad-Guys-only convoys.

horge
January 15, 2006, 08:14 PM
1. ... Even in Iraq, we don't have a war. We have an occupation. We 'won' the brief war when we deposed Sadaam. How do you win a prolonged occupation?

The 1899-1946 Philippine Exit Strategy seems to be what the Bush Administration
is following, with technological advancements in information dissemination
shortening the grind to 5-8 years.

And as far as encouraging or discourging terrorism, this "collateral damage" is pretty much like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline.

If the US cannot avoid collaeral damage (the enemy is a coward who
HIDES among civilians for precisely that end) via remotes, then it all boils
down to having human resources on the ground to kill, or at least verify
target location, prep to a remote strike.

I feel terribly for the innocents affected, and yes, it does fuel the fire.



horge

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 08:28 PM
When will the WOT end? At best, in the next two generations, more likely it will still be going on long after us adults are dead. President Bush also said as much after 9/11. This is going to be a long deadly process that hasn't even hit full steam yet. I remember the President also saying to the American people that there would be dark days ahead and to keep our resolve, which was fine right after 9/11, but now people have gone complacent and unwilling to do what it takes, which is personified by some on this board.

Biker
January 15, 2006, 08:36 PM
"What it takes" is pretty much subjective, ain't it? Evidentally, you're willing to give up much for the illusion of safety.
I really should take up selling Melasnakeoil if this is the prevalant attitude today in America.
Hmmmm....64% approve of Bush by-passing Fisa, the Patriot Act is fine with most...
:uhoh:
Biker

SIGarmed
January 15, 2006, 09:16 PM
Where did you read that it was only women and children? When you try to spin the discussion in a different direction by inserting a word like this, you might distract the more simple-minded reader, but you don't detract from the fact that women and children were killed. Regardless of how you try to spin that fact, it remains a problem.

I think my point was well made. Whether there were any men killed or not. That's a moot point. It seems the islamofascists have made a policy of making non-combatants good sheilds that will die eveytime we make a move.

That's been the policy of the dirtbags for a very long time. The whiners over here eat it up, and that's why they do it. When you harbor terrorists you will pay the price. This game is for keeps.

Lone_Gunman
January 15, 2006, 09:26 PM
I remember the President also saying to the American people that there would be dark days ahead and to keep our resolve, which was fine right after 9/11, but now people have gone complacent and unwilling to do what it takes, which is personified by some on this board.

I think in the years to come, the war will be fought in different ways. More like a cold war than what we have seen with Bush. We absolutely need better intelligence. We need to move away from attacking groups of "possible" terrorists with the military, based on poor intelligence. This causes too much collateral damage, breeds hate against Americans, and recruits people to the side of the islamofascists. We must switch to infiltration, surveillance, and ultimate very specific engagement of the enemy. The WOT needs to become more of an intelligence/law enforcement operation, and less of blowing up everything in a general area, and hoping someone bad was there.

Living in a constant state of "war" for the next several generations will certainly destroy our republic. Politicians talk of things like the Patriot Act being only temporary while we fight the war, but if we are talking generations, then how temporary is that.

I think the course Bush has put us on of perpetual warfare will be the unravelling of our country. Our government wants us to be afraid.

Ryder
January 15, 2006, 10:10 PM
Great timing on the 18 killed. This will give them a reason to ignore the 362 muslums killed (some disfigured beyond recognition) and over 1000 muslums injured that died in a stampede that same day. Were they running from our bombs? No, it was a religious gathering. Good thing they value human life so highly otherwise someone might say they were showing hypocracy over these 18 deaths by raising such a fuss.

We can create no new enemies given the fact and that we had no freinds in the area this bombing happened in the first place. Why do you suppose the terrorists live there?

What they protest is the fact we are there at all. Leave it to our media to hype the theory that they care how many innocent people die.

Lone_Gunman
January 15, 2006, 10:12 PM
We can create no new enemies given the fact and that we had no freinds in the area this bombing happened in the first place.

I agree, but that doesn't make it right to kill innocent people.

longhorngunman
January 15, 2006, 10:18 PM
Lone Gunman, you and John Kerry seem to have the same philosophy when it comes to defeating those that would like to kill us all. Thankfully, Kerry lost.

SIGarmed
January 15, 2006, 10:33 PM
Lone Gunman, you and John Kerry seem to have the same philosophy when it comes to defeating those that would like to kill us all. Thankfully, Kerry lost.
And don't forget Clinton pre-9-11.

Lone_Gunman
January 15, 2006, 11:17 PM
So how are we safer now that we have killed these villagers? How is al qaeda harmed by this action? This is a screw up, plain and simple, and we will continue to screw up like this as long as we go about in the half assed way we have been going. I realize good intelligence is very difficult to come by, but bad intelligence gets bystanders killed and makes us look bad.

I guess we don't have to worry about the children growing up into terrorists. I guess you are thinking more long term than I am. Nits grow into lice, eh?

Waitone
January 16, 2006, 12:15 AM
We are paying for 30+ years of playing like Little Lord Fontleroy in a knife fight. Human intel demands we do dirt, get dirty, and play with dirty people. If you don't we will get a steady stream of what just happened.

Art Eatman
January 16, 2006, 12:16 AM
This thread seems to have grown lice...

:), Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!