Al Queda scores an own goal :-)

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-04 02:18pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... blast_dc_9

Leading Al Qaeda Suspect Killed in Yemen Car Blast
Mon Nov 4, 9:09 AM ET

By Mohammad Sudam

SANAA (Reuters) - A car explosion has killed six alleged members of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network, including a key suspect in an attack on a U.S. warship in Aden two years ago, Yemen said on Monday.

Yemen's Saba news agency quoted an Interior Ministry official as saying arms and traces of explosives where found in the car along with communications equipment after Sunday's blast in the Marib oil-producing province, 105 miles east of the capital Sanaa.

"The six people who are suspected members of al Qaeda organization were all killed in the blast," the official said, without elaborating on the nature of the blast. The official confirmed earlier reports that authorities believed one of the dead men was Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, also known as Abu Ali, one of two key suspects who were being hunted by security forces since the September 11 attacks on the United States. Washington blames bin Laden's al Qaeda for the attacks.

Abu Ali is suspected of involvement in the 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole in Yemen's Aden harbor that killed 17 U.S. sailors.

Yemen is keen to shake off its reputation as a haven for Muslim militants and says it is holding 85 people arrested in a manhunt for al Qaeda members.

Authorities have been hunting down other suspected militants believed to be sheltering in the rugged mountainous area between Sanaa and Marib, a stronghold for disgruntled armed tribesmen who have often kidnapped tourists and foreigners working in Yemen in recent years.

The car blast coincided with a visit to Marib by the U.S. ambassador to Yemen.

A source close to the U.S. embassy told Reuters that there was no link between the ambassador's visit and the explosion or a shooting on Sunday involving a helicopter owned by U.S. energy firm Hunt Oil operating in Yemen.

Gunmen fired at the helicopter shortly after it started a journey from Sanaa to Marib, but it landed safely with one person slightly hurt.

Officials have said it was not yet known who had fired at the helicopter and that authorities were questioning some tribal leaders in the area near the airport in the capital.

A French supertanker was holed by an apparent attack off the coast of Aden last month, almost exactly two years after the Cole attack, which Washington has also blamed on bin Laden.

Yemen is the ancestral home of the Saudi-born fugitive.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-04 02:34pm

The question is was it intentional or not, IE did a bomb they where going to plant go off early or did someone higher up want to rid them selves of an unwanted operative?

Its also possible that a third arty did it to get them, but given Yemen's government stance on terrorism, simply ambushing the car would seem more likely.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-11-04 06:38pm

The Pentagon has now claimed US responsibility for the assassination. The suspects were executed by a remote-piloted aircraft, likely a Predator UAV armed with Hellfire missiles.

And isn't the US election tomorrow? What a coincidence....

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-04 06:43pm

And isn't the US election tomorrow? What a coincidence....

If you honsely think the US Goverment could track him with ease for weeks on end and blow him up RIGHT before the election you are seriously smoking somthing

And besides this is not even on CNN Yet people will have already voted before they hear about it

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-04 06:47pm

Mr Bean wrote:
And isn't the US election tomorrow? What a coincidence....
If you honsely think the US Goverment could track him with ease for weeks on end and blow him up RIGHT before the election you are seriously smoking somthing

And besides this is not even on CNN Yet people will have already voted before they hear about it

Made NBC Nightly at 6:30 along with pictures of the car. Totally blown away.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-04 06:47pm

Made NBC Nightly at 6:30 along with pictures of the car. Totally blown away.

Least see Tomrrow Afternoon how many people caught it

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 06:55pm

FUCK THE STUPID FUCKERS UP THEIR FUCKING PATRIOTIC FUCKING ARSES!

Can you tell I'm pissed? What kind of fucking moron launches an attack on a potentially "civilian" target in another nation (in the middle of the area that you guys are supposed to be currying favour with to support a FUCKING WAR), whose government was not even INFORMED of this strike, let alone approving it!

And then you people say that this will get the government more support in the mid-terms? WHAT KIND OF FUCKED UP COUNTRY ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN? Maybe I should just fire several fucking hellfires at Dubya next time he does a public appearance? I mean, if one nation is exempt from internation law - Why shouldn't we all be? Stupid fuckers.

[/rant]

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-04 06:59pm

Already happened to Leroy Moody of the Weathermen in the USA, and "Dr. Death" of the I.R.A. blown up by their own side on "accident".

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-04 07:00pm

A Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is seen with a Hellfire-C laser guided missile under one wing in this file photo from a February 21, 2001 test flight at Nellis Airforce Base in Nevada. A missile fired by an unmanned CIA (news - web sites) drone hit a car believed to be carrying suspected al Qaeda members in Yemen November 4, 2002 and killed several occupants a U.S. official said November 5. Six alleged al Qaeda members were believed killed including a key suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole (news - web sites). While the CIA is known to operate armed Predator aircraft, it could not be confirmed if the Predator was used in this attack. (USAFMC/Reuters)

The official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters the American military was not involved in the attack, which reports from Sanaa said killed six alleged al Qaeda members, including a key suspect in a bombing attack on the U.S. warship Cole in Aden two years ago.

"As I understand it, it was an agency drone" that conducted the weekend strike, said the U.S. official, who did not provide any details.

The Defense Department and CIA refused to comment on the incident, but Yemen's news agency reported in Sanaa that a car explosion had killed six alleged members of al Qaeda. The radical Muslin group led by fugitive Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) is blamed by Washington for the devastating attacks on America in September of last year.

Post by **Steve** » 2002-11-04 07:10pm

Considering that Yemen has been cooperating with the fight for al-Qaeda, I don't think they're against this. So fuck off ando.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 07:24pm

Steve wrote:Considering that Yemen has been cooperating with the fight for al-Qaeda, I don't think they're against this. So fuck off ando.

So why not let the Yemenis nab these guys? Why fly a CIA drone there to blow the crap out of the car? Sure they might not be against it, but if they weren't told its just as bad.

And fuck you too.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-04 07:26pm

Were did it say they weren't told? Perhaps Yemen did not have the resources to nab these guys?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 07:32pm

Cyril wrote:Were did it say they weren't told? Perhaps Yemen did not have the resources to nab these guys?

I'm basing my assumptions on what I've seen and heard thus far through the news services. And with the CIAs track record until its confirmed that they Yemeni government knew I'm assuming otherwise.

Post by **Steve** » 2002-11-04 07:53pm

weemadando wrote:
Steve wrote:Considering that Yemen has been cooperating with the fight for al-Qaeda, I don't think they're against this. So fuck off ando.
So why not let the Yemenis nab these guys? Why fly a CIA drone there to blow the crap out of the car? Sure they might not be against it, but if they weren't told its just as bad.

And fuck you too.

We'll find out the details later, it's possible they were en route to perform an attack and were armed; I think we can both agree it's better to just kill them in the car than do so and cost the health and lives of Yemeni security forces and police.

And fuck you again!

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-11-04 08:02pm

Enlightenment wrote:The Pentagon has now claimed US responsibility for the assassination. The suspects were executed by a remote-piloted aircraft, likely a Predator UAV armed with Hellfire missiles.

And isn't the US election tomorrow? What a coincidence....

Cool. I don't think anyone will agree with me on this, but I've always thought it would be effective to show terrorist that 1) We will play their game, and 2) We will play it better. Which will hopefully lead them to 3) It's time for them to retire.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 09:41pm

Ah... One more thing:

BBC News wrote:America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out an attack in Yemen that killed six suspected members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, according to US officials.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2402479.stm

Supects... So now being a suspect is grounds to be hit by a guided missile?

What the hell ever happened to those grand American institutions of "innocent until proven guilty" and "the right to a fair trial"?

So why don't we just nuke South Central LA, Oakland and every corporate HQ in the US on "suspicion" of a crime...

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2002-11-04 10:27pm

weemadando wrote:Ah... One more thing:

BBC News wrote:America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out an attack in Yemen that killed six suspected members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, according to US officials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2402479.stm

Supects... So now being a suspect is grounds to be hit by a guided missile?

What the hell ever happened to those grand American institutions of "innocent until proven guilty" and "the right to a fair trial"?

So why don't we just nuke South Central LA, Oakland and every corporate HQ in the US on "suspicion" of a crime...

Finally, someone who isn't so "oh America rules, I'm cumming just thinking of patriotism" bullshitting. For fucks sake, you DONT go around assasinating SUSPECTS in ANOTHER COUNTRY. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ON A SYBIAN ARE THE YANKEES THAT STUPID?????????????????????????????????????????
Lets do what the Americans do! Lets go and kill Shrub next time he walks out of the fucking White House. Fuck the americans and their sense of superiority. Fuck 'em all.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-04 10:45pm

As potentially unfortunate as it is, in most terrorist cases one does not have to be tried in order to be convicted. Much of the time, the risk of fleeing from justice is too great, and the potential to commit further crimes is too high, to allow such individuals to continue. It has been the consistent policy of the Israeli Mossad, for example, to terminate the lives of suspected terrorists as if they threaten innocent lives merely by existing. It appears that this policy is now being carried out by the Americans, both in this case and in several cases in Afghanistan and the rest of the region over the past decade or two. It is also widely speculated that similar policies are being put into action with many drug-lords in Central and South America, though these reports are unconfirmed.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-11-04 11:05pm

You know when they say

WANTED:
DEAD

or

ALIVE

Dead is a viable option.

Its simple utilitarianism. If there is X chance thes guys are terrorists and will kill an equal or greater number of innoccents then if X > 1 - X. You can their ass when you have the chance. If you can apprehend them, that's a good thing. If the choice is fragging their asses or letting them walk and kill again ... the responsible choice is to kill them postehaste.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-04 11:13pm

The fact remains:

SUSPECT!

As in they don't know for sure. They think it might have been them...

I wouldn't have AS MUCH of a problem with this if it was proven, wanted terrorists. Not SUSPECTS!

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-11-04 11:29pm

What the hell do you think the "Dead" in "Dead or Alive" stands for? It is socially irresponsible to not kill someone on the slim chance they turn out not to be guilty. I'll be point blank honest if their wrong, then you have 6 dead innocents. If they are right (and he's guilty as sin) and they let him go it may be another 1000 dead.

I mean hell and damn would it be any different if this was Usama bin Ladin who is STILL A BLOODY SUSPECT? I mean we have videotape, testimony from numerous associates, and he's still a frikking suspect. You only stop being a suspect after the trial. When your wanted poster is Dead or Alive they already have a case that the DA would describe as locked.

It's nice to know that there are people who'd rather risk thousands of innocents just so they can have a clean conscience. It must be nice when you can casually dismiss the prospect of massive death tolls just because there is a 1 in a 1000 shot he's not guilty. I love the people who think our police and soldiers should risk their lives to protect innocents (and garuntee that some of them WILL DIE), but ask anyone else to make such a sacrifice, its suddenly the work of evil.

Its really simple the moral thing to do here is to the action whose expectation value of dead innocents is the lowest.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-05 12:11am

tharkûn wrote:What the hell do you think the "Dead" in "Dead or Alive" stands for? It is socially irresponsible to not kill someone on the slim chance they turn out not to be guilty. I'll be point blank honest if their wrong, then you have 6 dead innocents. If they are right (and he's guilty as sin) and they let him go it may be another 1000 dead.

Generally in the Wild West, people who had "Dead or Alive" status had been seen in the act of commiting various crimes. Not being linked to crimes through tenuous strands of evidence.

I mean hell and damn would it be any different if this was Usama bin Ladin who is STILL A BLOODY SUSPECT? I mean we have videotape, testimony from numerous associates, and he's still a frikking suspect. You only stop being a suspect after the trial. When your wanted poster is Dead or Alive they already have a case that the DA would describe as locked.

Osama is an excellent example of someone, with whom there is enough evidence to go after them. They still deserve to end up in the ICC rather than just as a smoking ruin in the desert though.

The case with Osama is, he's admitted guild for September 11 as well as other attacks. As such he is no longer a suspect, he is an admitted criminal.

It's nice to know that there are people who'd rather risk thousands of innocents just so they can have a clean conscience. It must be nice when you can casually dismiss the prospect of massive death tolls just because there is a 1 in a 1000 shot he's not guilty. I love the people who think our police and soldiers should risk their lives to protect innocents (and garuntee that some of them WILL DIE), but ask anyone else to make such a sacrifice, its suddenly the work of evil.

And its also good to know that at least SOME PEOPLE have respect for human rights and international law. You are obviously not one of these people. I think that terrorist acts are evil and despicable and blah blah blah. But doesn't the US realise that hitting a car in another sovereign nation with a missile is an act of terrorism?

And isn't it part of the soldiers and polices role to protect the innocent? What you seem to be trying to argue is that vigilanteism on an international level is an acceptable course of action. Grow up.

Its really simple the moral thing to do here is to the action whose expectation value of dead innocents is the lowest.

Huh? Check your grammar.

Post by **Zaia** » 2002-11-05 12:22am

tharkûn wrote: It is socially irresponsible to not kill someone on the slim chance they turn out not to be guilty....It must be nice when you can casually dismiss the prospect of massive death tolls just because there is a 1 in a 1000 shot he's not guilty. I love the people who think our police and soldiers should risk their lives to protect innocents (and garuntee that some of them WILL DIE), but ask anyone else to make such a sacrifice, its suddenly the work of evil.

There are many things in your statement with which I disagree; however, for the sake of being concise, I have limited my answers to addressing only the points made above.

The first sentence there makes my head spin with its bloodlust and blatant disregard for human life. You are saying it is fine for us Americans to make the judgement call that says that we are allowed to kill someone we think MIGHT be guilty while having no actual proof that that person was to blame. Isn't that the same sort of logic that was behind the Sept. 11th attacks? That America is to blame for the wrongs of the world?

Having three family members in the police force and six friends in various branches of the armed services, I will share with you that protecting the lives of innocents IS their job, whether it requires self-sacrifice or not. You wrote, "I love the people who think our police and solidiers should risk their lives to protect innocents." What do you think they do all day, every day? Eat doughnuts and scratch their balls? Scrub toilets and cut and peel potatoes? They prepare for the time when they will be called to perform the duties they have been training for since they entered. Ask anyone in the military, the police force, or the firehouse--they get involved in their jobs knowing what price they may have to pay, and gratefully, they are willing to make that sacrifice to save others who cannot save themselves.

And a one in 1000 chance is still that--a fucking chance. Obviously you've never known anyone who has had to appear in a court of law for anything. Perhaps you should get your head out of your ass and consider how you'd feel if someone blew your fucking head apart because there was a chance you knew what the hell you were talking about.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-05 01:29am

What the hell do you think the "Dead" in "Dead or Alive" stands for? It is socially irresponsible to not kill someone on the slim chance they turn out not to be guilty. I'll be point blank honest if their wrong, then you have 6 dead innocents. If they are right (and he's guilty as sin) and they let him go it may be another 1000 dead.

As long as they are not you or your love ones its okay to kill innocents right?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-05 09:29am

Considering one of the men in the car was Osama bin Laden's bodyguard, I find it difficult to believe he was driving with perfectly innocent men.