+ 1 for the good guys -- maybe...

This is a discussion on + 1 for the good guys -- maybe... within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; For real this time. Mustafa al-Yazid, who had directe ties to Osama bin Laden, was pronounced dead once before, but this is the first time ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: + 1 for the good guys -- maybe...

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Thumbs up + 1 for the good guys -- maybe...

    For real this time. Mustafa al-Yazid, who had directe ties to Osama bin Laden, was pronounced dead once before, but this is the first time
    al-Qaida itself has acknowledged his death.

    Al Qaeda's No. 3 Man Believed Killed in Strike - CBS News

    Al Qaeda's No. 3 Man Believed Killed in Strike
    Death of Finance Chief and Founding Member Mustafa al-Yazid Would Represent Biggest Hit in Drone Attacks

    (CBS/AP) Al Qaeda announced Monday that its No. 3 official, Mustafa al-Yazid, had been killed along with members of his family - perhaps one of the most severe blows to the terror movement since the U.S. campaign against al Qaeda began. A U.S. official said al-Yazid was believed to have died in a U.S. missile strike.

    A statement posted on an al Qaeda Website said al-Yazid, which it described as the organization's top commander in Afghanistan, was killed along with his wife, three daughters, a grandchild and other men, women and children but did not say how or where.

    The statement did not give an exact date for al-Yazid's death, but it was dated by the Islamic calendar month of "Jemadi al-Akhar," which falls in May.

    CBS News' Khaled Wassef who monitors jihadist websites and Arabic media, says a May 5, 2010 web statement eulogizing two al Qaeda leaders killed in Iraq was the last time al-Yazid was heard from publically.

    Some reports suggest he may have been killed in a May 21 drone strike in the village of Mohammed Khel in the Datta Khel area of North Waziristan.

    His death would be a major blow to al Qaeda, which in December "lost both its internal and external operations chiefs," the official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

    "Perhaps we may be getting close to the top two," CBS News security analyst Juan Zarate said Tuesday on "The Early Show", referring to Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri.

    Zarate said two years of suspected CIA drone strikes in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region had led to a, "depletion of the senior bench for al Qaeda."

    He believed the strikes were likely to add "stress" to the group's core leadership, but that apprehending or killing bin Laden and Zawahri remained key objectives, as bin Laden in particular "still matters, he's still strategically relevant."

    The Egyptian-born al-Yazid, also known as Sheik Saeed al-Masri, was a founding member of al Qaeda and the group's prime conduit to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri. He was key to day-to-day control, with a hand in everything from finances to operational planning, the U.S. official said.

    A Taliban source close to one of Pakistan's most powerful militant commanders tells CBS News' Sami Yousafzai al-Yazid's death would be "a big loss for al Qaeda," but claimed the American focus on taking out senior members would be overshadowed by the group's successful recruiting.

    The source, who spoke to CBS on condition of anonymity, said the militant group's ranks had swelled to record levels in the last two years. He said al-Yazid had been instrumental in forging a closer bond between al Qaeda and Pakistan's Taliban leaders.

    "Pakistani agencies had been watching him for a long time," the source added. His claims could not be independently verified, and the Taliban often exaggerate claims of recruitment.

    Yousafzai says it was not immediately clear who bin Laden and al-Zawahri might tap to replace the slain Egyptian militant, but the Taliban source claimed the group was spoiled for choice.

    Al-Yazid has been reported killed before, in 2008, but this is the first time his death has been acknowledged by the militant group on the Internet.

    Two Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said al-Yazid died in a U.S. missile strike on May 21 in the North Waziristan tribal area.

    Soon after the attack, officials reported that two foreigners were among the 10 people killed, but did know their identities. Five women and two children were also wounded in the attack, which occurred in the village of Boya near the main town in the area, Miran Shah.

    The intelligence officials said they received word of al-Yazid's death last week and confirmed it by speaking to local tribal elders and Taliban members. They said their sources had not seen al-Yazid's body and did not know where he was buried.

    Al-Yazid has been one of many targets in a U.S. Predator drone campaign aimed at militants in Pakistan since President Barack Obama took office. Al-Yazid made no secret of his contempt for the United States, once calling it "the evil empire leading crusades against the Muslims."

    "We have reached the point where we see no difference between the state and the American people," al-Yazid told Pakistan's Geo TV in a June 2008 interview. "The United States is a non-Muslim state bent on the destruction of Muslims."

    The shadowy, 55-year-old al-Yazid has been involved with Islamic extremist movements for nearly 30 years since he joined radical student groups led by fellow Egyptian al-Zawahri, now the No. 2 figure in al Qaeda after bin Laden.

    In the early 1980s, al-Yazid served three years in an Egyptian prison for purported links to the group responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. After his release, al-Yazid turned up in Afghanistan, where, according to al Qaeda's propaganda wing Al-Sabah, he became a founding member of the terrorist group.

    He later followed bin Laden to Sudan and back to Afghanistan, where he served as al Qaeda's chief financial officer, managing secret bank accounts in the Persian Gulf that were used to help finance the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. After the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan in 2001, al-Yazid went into hiding for years. He surfaced in May 2007 during a 45-minute interview posted on the Web by Al-Sabah, in which he was introduced as the "official in charge" of the terrorist movement's operations in Afghanistan.

    Some security analysts believe the choice of al-Yazid as the Afghan chief may have signaled a new approach for al Qaeda in the country where it once reigned supreme.

    Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit that tracked bin Laden, believes bin Laden and al-Zawahri wanted a trusted figure to handle Afghanistan "while they turn to other aspects of the jihad outside" the country.

    Al-Yazid had little background in leading combat operations. But terrorism experts say his advantage was that he was close to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. As a fluent Pashto speaker known for impeccable manners, al-Yazid enjoyed better relations with the Afghans than many of the al Qaeda Arabs, whom the Afghans found arrogant and abrasive.

    That suggested a conscious decision by al Qaeda to embed within the Taliban organization, helping the Afghan allies with expertise and training while at the same time putting an Afghan face on the war.

    Al-Yazid himself alluded to such an approach in an interview this year with Al-Jazeera television's Islamabad correspondent Ahmad Zaidan. Al-Yazid said al Qaeda fighters were involved at every level with the Taliban.

    "We participate with our brothers in the Islamic Emirate in all fields," al-Yazid said. "This had a big positive effect on the (Taliban) self-esteem in Afghanistan."

    A September 2007 al Qaeda video sought to promote the notion of close Taliban-al Qaeda ties at a time when the Afghan insurgents were launching their comeback six years after their ouster from power in Kabul.

    The video showed al-Yazid sitting with a senior Taliban commander in a field surrounded by trees as a jihad anthem played. The Taliban commander vowed to "target the infidels in Afghanistan and outside Afghanistan" and to "focus our attacks, Allah willing, on the coalition forces in Afghanistan."

    There is also evidence that al-Yazid has promoted ties with Islamic extremist groups in Central Asia and Pakistan, where other top al Qaeda figures are believed to be hiding.

    "He definitely seems to have significant influence among the Pakistani Taliban and the Central Asian groups," terrorism expert Evan Kohlman said. "They regularly post and share his videos on the Web, just as they would with bin Laden or al-Zawahri."

    In August 2008, Pakistani military officials claimed al-Yazid had been killed in fighting in the Bajaur tribal area along the Afghan border. However, he turned up in subsequent al Qaeda videos, all of which had clearly been made after the Bajaur fighting.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Deuce130's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Destin
    Posts
    291
    Unfortunately, we also killed women and children in the strike. That could very easily be blamed on the dirtbag AQ for using human shields. But, it won't be. Public opinion is very much a part of the (formerly) GWOT and it's something that the military has to deal with. Hopefully this won't have too much blowback in the Arab world. The bottom line, however, is that the good guys cannot kill women and children and chalk it up to collateral damage. That is something THEY do. We need to find another way.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    10,964
    Can't say I'll really miss him!

    Three down, two to go!
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177

    collateral damage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce130 View Post
    Unfortunately, we also killed women and children in the strike. That could very easily be blamed on the dirtbag AQ for using human shields. But, it won't be. Public opinion is very much a part of the (formerly) GWOT and it's something that the military has to deal with. Hopefully this won't have too much blowback in the Arab world. The bottom line, however, is that the good guys cannot kill women and children and chalk it up to collateral damage. That is something THEY do. We need to find another way.
    You lay down with a dog that has fleas and your gonna get fleas,giving aid and comfort to the enemy is just as bad as actively striking targets
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  6. #5
    Member Array Deuce130's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Destin
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    You lay down with a dog that has fleas and your gonna get fleas,giving aid and comfort to the enemy is just as bad as actively striking targets
    Normally, I would agree with you. The children, however, are not providing aid and comfort to anyone. They've really got no choice in the matter. You can make the argument that the deaths of the kids can be blamed on the terrorist who intentionally put them in harms way. And you would be correct....but that doesn't alleviate us of the responsibility to work around that problem when we have knowledge of their presence prior to the strike. As I said before, chalking up innocent women and children to collateral damage is not something we as Americans should accept. That's the other sides' MO, not ours.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array friesepferd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    east TN
    Posts
    2,341
    yea, i can feel sorry for any child that ends up a casualty. dont really feel for the wife / women there tho. as said above, they hang out with the wrong crowd.
    Wo die Notwehr aufhört, fängt der Mord an
    (Murder begins where self-defense ends)
    Georg Büchner

  8. #7
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce130 View Post
    Normally, I would agree with you. The children, however, are not providing aid and comfort to anyone. They've really got no choice in the matter. You can make the argument that the deaths of the kids can be blamed on the terrorist who intentionally put them in harms way. And you would be correct....but that doesn't alleviate us of the responsibility to work around that problem when we have knowledge of their presence prior to the strike. As I said before, chalking up innocent women and children to collateral damage is not something we as Americans should accept. That's the other sides' MO, not ours.
    The enemy's MO is to intentionally target and kill innocents to inflict terror. That's very different than what happens when we target a combatant and end up with non-combatant casualties. It's unfortunate. It's tragic. I wouldn't want to have to make the call, and I'm glad I never had to in my trips to Afghanistan or Iraq. But, someone has to make a judgement call, and sadly it involves weighing ultimate consequences. If killing him involved a few civilian deaths, would it prevent more in the long run? It's basic military math. (Incidently, it's the same math we use to figure out how many of us dead it's worth).
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  9. #8
    Member Array Deuce130's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Destin
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by MSteve View Post
    The enemy's MO is to intentionally target and kill innocents to inflict terror. That's very different than what happens when we target a combatant and end up with non-combatant casualties. It's unfortunate. It's tragic. I wouldn't want to have to make the call, and I'm glad I never had to in my trips to Afghanistan or Iraq. But, someone has to make a judgement call, and sadly it involves weighing ultimate consequences. If killing him involved a few civilian deaths, would it prevent more in the long run? It's basic military math.
    I was with you up to the military math comment. That's not the way it works. We don't simply judge a decision based on 100 terrorists, minus 90 civilians equals an unknown in the future. Just look up the current ROEs concerning airstrikes in the AOR. One thing I tried to highlight in my first post was the reality of the insurgency...every civilian death, intentional or not, sets back our efforts over there. We must take that into consideration. I can accept the idea of collateral damage, it happens all the time. What I find difficult to accept is intentionally targeting a combatant with full knowledge that non-combatants will also be killed, especially little kids. It does happen, and sometimes certain HVTs may necessitate it, but we should still strive to avoid it whenever possible. I'm not really saying anything that runs counter to our current methods, law of armed conflict, or to the use of force training the military receives. It's how we currently operate. My point is that we need to continue to exercise caution and restraint, especially when children are involved.

  10. #9
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce130 View Post
    I was with you up to the military math comment. That's not the way it works. We don't simply judge a decision based on 100 terrorists, minus 90 civilians equals an unknown in the future. Just look up the current ROEs concerning airstrikes in the AOR. One thing I tried to highlight in my first post was the reality of the insurgency...every civilian death, intentional or not, sets back our efforts over there. We must take that into consideration. I can accept the idea of collateral damage, it happens all the time. What I find difficult to accept is intentionally targeting a combatant with full knowledge that non-combatants will also be killed, especially little kids. It does happen, and sometimes certain HVTs may necessitate it, but we should still strive to avoid it whenever possible. I'm not really saying anything that runs counter to our current methods, law of armed conflict, or to the use of force training the military receives. It's how we currently operate. My point is that we need to continue to exercise caution and restraint, especially when children are involved.
    We agree.
    It should be avoided whenever possible, but your example is exactly what I'm saying.
    Someone, somewhere is making the call on that HVT.
    No one wants to talk about that stuff, just like no one wants to talk about how many Soldiers we expect to lose going into an operation. Someone has decided that expectation is acceptable, or the op wouldn't happen. That doesn't mean we don't make every effort to mitigate, but not at the expense of the mission.
    Maybe "math" isn't the best way to phrase it, but someone is still saying it's worth the "risk" of killing the civilians to get the HVT. It's worth the "risk" because it reduces the "risk" to even more civilians by not doing it.
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Another Win for the Good Guys
    By jryan06 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 27th, 2010, 01:29 PM
  2. Edged Weapons-Good Guys vs Bad Guys
    By mercop in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 12th, 2009, 03:52 AM
  3. A Win for The Good Guys
    By CT-Mike in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 14th, 2008, 09:06 PM
  4. "potential bad guys are good guys until they do something wrong"
    By RidemCowboy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 14th, 2007, 05:40 AM
  5. You guys are good at these.
    By Euclidean in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 16th, 2006, 12:55 PM