Another al-Qaeda leader kill via drone strike

[The Illusive Man]

7:56AM EST December 9. 2012 - PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A U.S. drone strike has killed a senior al-Qaida leader in Pakistan's tribal region near the Afghan border, Pakistani intelligence officials said, in the latest blow to the global terrorist network.

Sheik Khalid bin Abdel Rehman al-Hussainan, who was also known as Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti, was killed when missiles slammed into a house Thursday near Mir Ali, one of the main town's in the North Waziristan tribal area, the officials said.

Al-Kuwaiti earlier this year replaced Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaida's second in command, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in North Waziristan in June, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

One less subhuman scumbag in existence, the world is that much of a better place. What is the turnover rate for al-Qaida now, new leader every few months?

Like an eagle swooping over the moon.

Al-Kuwaiti's wife and daughter were wounded in Thursday's drone attack, according to the intelligence officials. His wife died a day later at a hospital in Miran Shah, another main town in North Waziristan.

There is always collateral damage, at lease it seems limited. At this time anyway, more details are soon to emerge.

A Pakistani Taliban commander who frequently visits North Waziristan said he met some Arab fighters on Saturday who were "very aggrieved." The Arabs told him they lost a "big leader" in a drone strike, but would not reveal his name or his exact position in al-Qaida.

[Saturn500]

If this happened with every drone strike, there would be a little less reason to complain. But only a little less, what with the collateral damage and such.

[Witchyjoshy]

Al-Kuwaiti's wife and daughter were wounded in Thursday's drone attack, according to the intelligence officials. His wife died a day later at a hospital in Miran Shah, another main town in North Waziristan.

There is always collateral damage, at lease it seems limited. At this time anyway, more details are soon to emerge.

Nice to know that two human beings who were wounded, one of whom died, for someone else's sins are simply "collateral damage" to you.

This is the danger of dehumanization, people...

*steps off the soapbox and walks out the thread*

[ironbite]

Al-Kuwaiti's wife and daughter were wounded in Thursday's drone attack, according to the intelligence officials. His wife died a day later at a hospital in Miran Shah, another main town in North Waziristan.

There is always collateral damage, at lease it seems limited. At this time anyway, more details are soon to emerge.

Nice to know that two human beings who were wounded, one of whom died, for someone else's sins are simply "collateral damage" to you.

This is the danger of dehumanization, people...

*steps off the soapbox and walks out the thread*

This.  If they were fellow members of Al-Qaida I'd shed less tears but as it is....yeah.

Ironbite-seriously not cool.

[syaoranvee]

I'm sure Pakistan had no idea this guy was hanging out here either.

[Joey]

How many leaders does Al Qaeda have? Seems like we've killed one every month since 9/11/01.

[Atheissimo]

A map of drone strikes carried out by the Obama and Bush administrations. Seems the number of non-militants killed vs militants killed is startlingly equal.

That's not counting the more worrying statistic, ie. Number of non-militants killed: Unknown

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/10/drone_strikes_map_shows_pakistan_drone_strikes.html

[Askold]

I had a whole page written as a reply but the internet ate it!

Main points:

Positive things about using drone strikes: Less U.S. Soldiers are exposed to danger during a mission when a drone is used instead. Also cheaper than large operations.

Negative things:

Sending a drone to blow up a building where the target might be  is less selective than sendin a sguad of soldiers to check if he is there and then maybe shoot him if they see him.

Drone strikes increase anger against U.S.A. Especially due to the high amount of collateral damage. (both the buildings blown up and the larger amount of civilian casualties.)

Since the targets can't fight back against the attacker they will direct this anger in targets they can strike. Like american embassies and civilians or just the nearest U.S. military base. And this is important, using drones does not mean that less american soldiers will die, it just means that they will be attacked in their bases or convoys and other rear echelon positions. When they aren't expecting an attack. The amount of frontline deaths might go down but there will be retaliation and it can be even worse.

And since the U.S. military has already demonstrated that drones are an effective weapon other militaries and even terrorists have been trying to weaponize drones. This is because U.S. military has made it seem effective and reduced any taboo of using unmanned robots to kill people!

The original post was better but I'm not using another 20 minutes to try to rewrite it.

The young turks have some relevant videos on this. But since trying to dig them up crashed my computer during the last time I'm not going to risk it.

[syaoranvee]

The sad cynical thing is more then likely is that the daughter surviving means nothing.  She's in the perfect position to be manipulated into a suicide bomber for vengeance for the death of her parents.

[Distind]

And since the U.S. military has already demonstrated that drones are an effective weapon other militaries and even terrorists have been trying to weaponize drones. This is because U.S. military has made it seem effective and reduced any taboo of using unmanned robots to kill people!

I've been mystified why people haven't taken more advantage of it. I'd figure it'd at least be marginally more acceptable than strapping a bomb to some brainwashed kid and sitting them on a bus full of innocent people.

I don't see any taboo involved, hell, if anything it should be less taboo to send out a machine to do it than to send a squad of soldiers in. But I mean really, for under a grand I could see having a flying bomb to just land in a busy area, no fuss, no muss, big bang. Do it a few times and you'd be able to trigger a panic just flying an unarmed one around. Though thinking about it I suppose it might actually be cheaper to strap the vest to some random kid.

If we had flown in a squad of troops to do the same thing there would have at least been a fire fight through the building and likely the extraction site as locals responded to the intrusion. Think black hawk down for how well that can go.

If you're going to argue against the strikes I'd suggest at least taking the angle that some how these people shouldn't be killed in the first place. It's about the only argument I see holding much water.

[Witchyjoshy]

I would be lying if I said I was at all caring about the leader's life (which, coming from someone who opposes the death penalty, is hypocritical, but what can you do?)

I'm moreso concerned about the wife and daughter... because they haven't done anything wrong with this, and they get killed/injured for simply having the wrong father/husband.  And knowing how fundie al-Qaeda is, I don't think either of them had a choice.

[Art Vandelay]

I've been mystified why people haven't taken more advantage of it. I'd figure it'd at least be marginally more acceptable than strapping a bomb to some brainwashed kid and sitting them on a bus full of innocent people.

I don't see any taboo involved, hell, if anything it should be less taboo to send out a machine to do it than to send a squad of soldiers in. But I mean really, for under a grand I could see having a flying bomb to just land in a busy area, no fuss, no muss, big bang. Do it a few times and you'd be able to trigger a panic just flying an unarmed one around. Though thinking about it I suppose it might actually be cheaper to strap the vest to some random kid.

Probably because drones are freaking expensive, the only manufacturers are US military contractors, they require trained controllers to operate, there's a lot of high end electronics in them that needs very specialised care to maintain and of course, they're completely useless against any target that has anti-air defences more advanced than "guy with rocket launcher".

For most, something like a cruise missile or, failing that, a suicide bomber, is far more practical.

[MadCatTLX]

I've been mystified why people haven't taken more advantage of it. I'd figure it'd at least be marginally more acceptable than strapping a bomb to some brainwashed kid and sitting them on a bus full of innocent people.

I don't see any taboo involved, hell, if anything it should be less taboo to send out a machine to do it than to send a squad of soldiers in. But I mean really, for under a grand I could see having a flying bomb to just land in a busy area, no fuss, no muss, big bang. Do it a few times and you'd be able to trigger a panic just flying an unarmed one around. Though thinking about it I suppose it might actually be cheaper to strap the vest to some random kid.

Probably because drones are freaking expensive, the only manufacturers are US military contractors, they require trained controllers to operate, there's a lot of high end electronics in them that needs very specialised care to maintain and of course, they're completely useless against any target that has anti-air defences more advanced than "guy with rocket launcher".

For most, something like a cruise missile or, failing that, a suicide bomber, is far more practical.

A Predator drone would definitely be out of reach, but a home made one from off the shelf RC plane parts would be fairly easy. In fact I was toying with the idea of custom building an RC spy plane for use in large scale paintball games, and maybe attaching some waterballoons filled with paint to a drop system for more fun.

For a terrorist's purposes though, a cheap RC plane with a hand grenade duct taped to it would be something within reach, no? It would have to be within line of site and radio range though, unless you put a camera on the plane. Still "better" than a kid with said grenade.

I hope I'm not giving them ideas.

[Art Vandelay]

For a terrorist's purposes though, a cheap RC plane with a hand grenade duct taped to it would be something within reach, no? It would have to be within line of site and radio range though, unless you put a camera on the plane. Still "better" than a kid with said grenade.

I'm not sure how many Pakistani/Afghani tribals really know how to fly an RC plane. Those things are fiddly as all hell to control, and trying to hit a specific target from far away while there's almost certainly a wind blowing is pretty much not going to happen for a layman.

Far cheaper and more practical to just use a suicide bomber.

[Askold]

Using a cheap RC plane or helicopter would not work because those thing can't carry enough weight for a bomb that might actually do something. That is why USA is making their own drones instead of using RC planes.

If we had flown in a squad of troops to do the same thing there would have at least been a fire fight through the building and likely the extraction site as locals responded to the intrusion. Think black hawk down for how well that can go.

If you're going to argue against the strikes I'd suggest at least taking the angle that some how these people shouldn't be killed in the first place. It's about the only argument I see holding much water.

If they had flown in a squad that would have been more selective and less likely to cause civilian deaths. (Well the black hawk down incident did have civilian casualties as well, but at least a soldier on the ground can actually look at what he aims at and try to be selective.)

That was my point. Using drones reduces risks to the troops making the attack but it has huge civilian casualty rates and it is not even that good at killing the intended target. Some of those strikes are just targeted on basis "Hey those guys look like they have guns. Let's just blow them to pieces and then not even bother to check out who they were. Or if they had guns at all. And just bo be safe let's send in another missile at the ones who go help the injured from the first strike."

And it's not like everyone with a gun is a terrorist anyway.


Now I found some Young Turks videos relevant to this:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOcK6HsOoEc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOcK6HsOoEc</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=543EU5F14uE" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=543EU5F14uE</a>