Check one more off the al-Qaida list.

[stgislander]

It's about damn time.

Biden: Killing of al-Qaida leader is long-sought 'justice'

President Joe Biden has announced that al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Kabul.

apnews.com

 

[kom526]

Somewhere in the West Wing, "Ok team, the economy is in the dumper, inflation is through the roof and our president has dementia. What can we do for some brownie points before the mid terms?"

"Monkeypox pandemic?"
"Garner the sympathy vote with recurring COVID for big guy?"

"HEY, I KNOW! Let's drone strike an Al-Qaida leader and really pluck those 9/11 heartstrings!"

Valerie Jarrett and Ron Klain approve.

 

[GURPS]

Terrorist Leader al-Zawahiri Killed in Home of 'New York Times' Contributor​

Jalaluddin Haqqani, the father and founder of the network, had ties to the Taliban going back to the 1980s and the Soviet invasion. His son, Sirajuddin, was given a huge platform to spout his propaganda when the New York Times graciously offered him the opportunity to write an op-ed in February 2020.

It was filled with lies, half-truths, and exaggerations—about what we’ve come to expect from New York Times reporting over the years.

Significantly, the Times’ reporting on the killing of al-Zawahiri was stealth-edited to remove any mention of Sirajuddin Haqqani.

New York Post:

Now the Times is being accused of “stealth-editing” their reporting on the killing of al-Zawahri to remove details of the initial report specifically naming Haqqani.
“According to one American analyst, the house that was struck was owned by a top aide to Sirajuddin Haqqani, a senior official in the Taliban government whom American officials say is close to senior Qaeda figures,” the Times wrote in his initial reporting.
However, that paper axed that paragraph without an editor’s note and later replaced it with language that failed to name Haqqani specifically, as first pointed out by Pluribus editor Jeryl Bier.
“After the strike, members of the Haqqani network, a terrorist group that is part of the Taliban government, tried to conceal that Mr. Zawahri had been at the house and restrict access to the site, according to a senior administration official. But the official said the United States had multiple intelligence threads confirming that Mr. Zawahri was killed in the strike,” the Times wrote in the updated story.

The Times is no stranger to hosting controversial op-eds. But shouldn’t there be a line drawn somewhere? As it is, it should be pointed out that when Senator Tom Cotton penned an op-ed during the summer of riots in 2020 calling for the U.S. military to be deployed to cities where mayors refused to enforce the law, 800 Times staffers penned a letter to publisher A.G. Sulzberger claiming “the op-ed was dangerous, threatening and not factual, adding “it put people of color in jeopardy.”

 

[glhs837]

Somewhere in the West Wing, "Ok team, the economy is in the dumper, inflation is through the roof and our president has dementia. What can we do for some brownie points before the mid terms?"

"Monkeypox pandemic?"
"Garner the sympathy vote with recurring COVID for big guy?"

"HEY, I KNOW! Let's drone strike an Al-Qaida leader and really pluck those 9/11 heartstrings!"

Valerie Jarrett and Ron Klain approve.

Seeing so much of this. Nancy's visit to Taiwan being another. Doing a good thing for bad reasons still gets a good thing done, I suppose. I just hope the target audience sees through it.

 

[itsbob]

I get killing terrorists is a good thing, but what gives us the right? We are not at war with Afghanistan, and we willingly turned it over to the Taliban working out deals on our withdrawal, recognizing them as a legitimate country and a legitimate government.. so what gives the US the right to fly a drone into a sovereign nation and assassinate somebody, no matter how bad he is? Imagine if the Taliban starts doing the same thing to us.. which I'm sure if they haven't thought of it, are now.

Or is this a deflection?? Lets kill somebody, maybe we'll gain a few points, and when somebody mentions gas prices we can reply.. but we killed this guy!

 

[glhs837]

I get killing terrorists is a good thing, but what gives us the right? We are not at war with Afghanistan, and we willingly turned it over to the Taliban working out deals on our withdrawal, recognizing them as a legitimate country and a legitimate government.. so what gives the US the right to fly a drone into a sovereign nation and assassinate somebody, no matter how bad he is? Imagine if the Taliban starts doing the same thing to us.. which I'm sure if they haven't thought of it, are now.

Or is this a deflection?? Lets kill somebody, maybe we'll gain a few points, and when somebody mentions gas prices we can reply.. but we killed this guy!

I think the doctrine is that these people, specific ones, have committed not just crimes, but acts of war against the US. A war in which there is no defined battlefield.

Now, the timing, like Pelosi's visit, is part of a midterm strategy