• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Engineer
Kerry isn't in power, Bush is so it's irrelevant. Another fanboy trying to divert this to Kerry as if they're afraid Bush will look bad (even though most of us haven't mentioned Bush and most likely, he had no direct control of the bombing anyway).

Nice try. I didn't bring up Kerry, I was simply responding to the points raised about him.

Also, looks like we missed those terrorists, if there were truely any there. Our intelligence is looking more and more susptect every single month. Better get some more political capital to make up for it. Pakistan has every right to be pissed and file formal complaints.

Jumping the gun a bit, aren't we?

How many dead innocents do you need before you are going to show any remorse?

 
I wonder how long before the UN sanctions Bush&co. We have truly lost all semblance of any moral high ground
in this phony war on terrorism. I wonder if the idiots who planned this mission will ever be up on charges.--or its gonna be your doing a hecka of job here.-----keep at it even if we have to kill everyone in Pakistan.--sooner or later we will get a terrorist or two.

Have we lost our collective minds-----are we so blind we can't see?-----we have become even worse than terrorists.-----and are way ahead in the box score.
 
Originally posted by: Jave
How many dead innocents do you need before you are going to show any remorse?

How easily you forget the nearly 3,000 we lost on 9/11.

Then again, such numbers are a nuance to your political agenda.

 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Jave
How many dead innocents do you need before you are going to show any remorse?

How easily you forget the nearly 3,000 we lost on 9/11.

Then again, such numbers are a nuance to your political agenda.

Two wrongs make a right?

Let's bomb Saudi then considering that most of the 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi?

And remember, we are not concerned about Bin Ladin...Bush has told us so.

 
Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
Originally posted by: Jave


How many dead innocents do you need before you are going to show any remorse?

At least 2 dead Americans or at least 200,000 non-Americans.
You know cause we're so special. 🙂

I hope you do not mean:
At least 200,000 non-american dead for 2 dead Americans.
And who will count the number of non-americans
 
Originally posted by: Jave
I hope you do not mean:
At least 200,000 non-american dead for 2 dead Americans.
And who will count the number of non-americans

Yes of course. American life is so much more precious than non-American life.
Didn't you get the memo?

It doesn't matter how many countless dead we've left in our wake during our 'foreign policy (mis)adventures' it still doesn't mean anything to us... it means less to us as a nation than whether Lindsay Lohan has an eating disorder. Sad eh?
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Jave
How many dead innocents do you need before you are going to show any remorse?

How easily you forget the nearly 3,000 we lost on 9/11.

Then again, such numbers are a nuance to your political agenda.

30,000+ (A number from Bush, i do not beleive it) innocent Iraqis are 3,000 * 10. And no one is keeping track of Afghans
Its about time or a bit late to start addressing the terrorism issue rather than justifying certain number of deaths are necessary because of 9/11.
 
Originally posted by: Jave
30,000+ (A number from Bush, i do not beleive it) innocent Iraqis are 3,000 * 10. And no one is keeping track of Afghans
Its about time or a bit late to start addressing the terrorism issue rather than justifying certain number of deaths are necessary because of 9/11.

Pick whatever number of Iraqi "innocent" dead you believe. Do you believe that is justification for 9/11, or, that it somehow mitigates that loss?
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Do you believe that is justification for 9/11, or, that it somehow mitigates that loss?

9/11 was no more or no less justified as our invasion of Iraq.
Both are criminal acts of agression resulting in massive deaths.
 
Source: Al-Zawahiri not among 18 killed in airstrike

(CNN) -- Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in the al Qaeda terrorist network -- was not killed in a CIA airstrike on a remote Pakistani village, according to a Pakistani intelligence official.

U.S. sources said al-Zawahiri was the target of Friday's strike and initially reported that he may have been among the 18 people killed.

The Pakistani intelligence official said it was not known whether al-Zawahiri was in the area.

Pakistan's Foreign Office said Saturday it had lodged a protest with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan over the attack on the village of Damadola, near the Afghan border.

"Pakistan will also take up this matter in the next meeting of Tripartite Commission," a statement read. The group is made up of senior military and diplomatic representatives from coalition forces, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Associated Press quoted a senior Pakistani intelligence official as saying "our investigations conclude that they (the CIA) acted on a false information."

Reuters also quoted a senior Pakistani official as saying: "Al-Zawahri was not there at the time of the attack."

The Pentagon and the White House declined to comment on initial reports of the airstrike on Friday. (Watch how al-Zawahiri was targeted -- 5:39)

Friday morning's strike killed eight men, five women and five children, Pakistani intelligence sources told CNN. Three homes were targeted.

"We are conducting tests to identify the bodies," one intelligence official said.

The Foreign Office statement said a preliminary investigation shows "there was foreign presence in the area and that in all probability was targeted from across the border in Afghanistan.

"As a result of this act there has been loss of innocent civilian lives which we condemn. The investigations are still continuing."

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan's information minister, said that the U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker, is to be summoned and a strong protest will be made.

"While this act is highly condemnable, we have been for a long time been striving to rid all our tribal areas of foreign intruders who have been responsible for all the violence and misery in the region. This situation has to be brought to an end."

He added that it "is also the responsibility of the people in the areas to fully co-operate.'"

U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan have long been concerned about foreign fighters taking refuge in neighboring Pakistan.

The Foreign Office statement said Pakistan's armed forces "have undertaken a large-scale operation against the foreign militants and it remains our responsibility to protect our people and territory from outside intrusion."

Hundreds of residents took part Saturday in protesting the attack.

The strike came a week after the Arabic language news network Al-Jazeera aired a new videotape with a message from al-Zawahiri, in which he called on U.S. President George W. Bush to admit defeat in Iraq.

U.S. authorities believe al-Zawahiri, 54, a doctor from a prominent Egyptian family, helped mastermind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He has also been indicted in the United States for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The U.S. government has put up a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture.

While bin Laden himself hasn't been heard from since October 2004, last week's videotape was the fifth message from al-Zawahiri released over the past year, including several claiming responsibility for the July attacks on London's transit system.

Considered the intellectual and ideological driving force behind al Qaeda, al-Zawahiri has been associated with bin Laden since at least 1987, when they first met in Pakistan. He is also believed to act as bin Laden's personal physician.

In 1998, al-Zawahiri merged his own Islamic militant group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, into bin Laden's organization.

Three months after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. forces attacked al-Zawahiri's residence in Afghanistan, killing his wife and children.

In March 2004, Pakistani troops launched an assault on an area in Waziristan province where intelligence indicated al-Zawahiri was hiding, but he was not captured.

Last month, Pakistani officials confirmed the death of a top al Qaeda official, Abu Hamza Rabia, who was killed in an explosion December 1 north of the border town of Miram Shah (Full story).

But witnesses gave conflicting accounts of how he died. Villagers said he was killed in a missile strike, while Pakistan officials said he died while working with explosives.

Egyptian-born Rabia was described as al Qaeda's operations chief and No. 3 man.
=========================
Source: Al-Zawahiri not among 18 killed in airstrike

===========
this is BS..i think tese killings are still okay for pabster because of the 3000 dead americans in 2001..
 
The strike on Friday killed at least 18 people, including women and children, and three houses were destroyed in a village near the Afghan border, residents said.

--------------

I think innocent women ad cildren are accepted casualities of war unless they are amercan..strike that US citizens.This is most pathetic excuse the right wing jingoists claim..if the US keeeps dong this..i think 3000 casualitues In WTC are also collateral damage and no tears should be spent over them....
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Jave
30,000+ (A number from Bush, i do not beleive it) innocent Iraqis are 3,000 * 10. And no one is keeping track of Afghans
Its about time or a bit late to start addressing the terrorism issue rather than justifying certain number of deaths are necessary because of 9/11.

Pick whatever number of Iraqi "innocent" dead you believe. Do you believe that is justification for 9/11, or, that it somehow mitigates that loss?

Loss of "any" innocent life cannot be mitigated by taking life of other innocents. 9/11 is being used to justify any non-american loss of life. It is very important that we make sure that 9/11 does not happen again but but in the process I cannot support creation 1/14. (for the families in Pakistan, you are gonna probably forget this number tomorrow.)
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Jave
30,000+ (A number from Bush, i do not beleive it) innocent Iraqis are 3,000 * 10. And no one is keeping track of Afghans
Its about time or a bit late to start addressing the terrorism issue rather than justifying certain number of deaths are necessary because of 9/11.

Pick whatever number of Iraqi "innocent" dead you believe. Do you believe that is justification for 9/11, or, that it somehow mitigates that loss?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Jave
30,000+ (A number from Bush, i do not beleive it) innocent Iraqis are 3,000 * 10. And no one is keeping track of Afghans
Its about time or a bit late to start addressing the terrorism issue rather than justifying certain number of deaths are necessary because of 9/11.

Pick whatever number of Iraqi "innocent" dead you believe. Do you believe that is justification for 9/11, or, that it somehow mitigates that loss?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think he is one of 60+% Americans who still beleive 9/11 was carried out by Iraq or may be Iraq was behind Oklahoma City bombing.
 
Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
Originally posted by: Engineer

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

True. But, Iraqi's are 'those people' from 'over there' so it's close enough to qualify as revenge for many Americans.

I guess. Funny that Saudi is never targeted yet 75% of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi. *shrugs*
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: dimensionOFdissension
Originally posted by: Engineer

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

True. But, Iraqi's are 'those people' from 'over there' so it's close enough to qualify as revenge for many Americans.

I guess. Funny that Saudi is never targeted yet 75% of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi. *shrugs*


Not funny honey simply money. 😀

Bandar Bush should be able to explain to the American people why we cower down to the House of Saud.
 
Pabster, 9/11 justified the attack of Afghanistan and covert operations to assassinate al-qaeda operatives, but it did not give us justification for an attack in Afghanistan or launching missiles into an allied country.
 
Originally posted by: fierydemise
Pabster, 9/11 justified the attack of Afghanistan and covert operations to assassinate al-qaeda operatives, but it did not give us justification for an attack in Afghanistan or launching missiles into an allied country.

In all fairness, Pakistan has apparently harbored al Qaeda for years, and that was the justification for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. That being said, it seems to me this attack is an act of war against an ally, and that is strange to say the least.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842035/

I'm skeptical, but I hope it's true, could be a major step in the war on terror if true.

Wrong. Killed 18 women and children (or 30, the exact number isn't clear yet). It's a major step forward in the war on America.

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: slash196
Killing one person is not a major step in the war on terror. And if we killed 30 villagers, we just created at least 30 more terrorist. Good job!

Because the Japanese civilians became anti-U.S. terrorists after World War II?

Spurious comparison of a pointless war to a necessary war. You're pretty clever. Not.
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Spurious comparison of a pointless war to a necessary war. You're pretty clever. Not.

Your definition of a "necessary" war must be a bit different. The way I see it, freeing millions of people from tyranny was the goal of both -- and both were successful.
 
Back
Top