Al-Libi Dead
-
How did he escape in 2005?
-
In July 2005, Omar al-Faruq, the highest-ranked prisoner at the base and one of the highest-ranked al-Qaeda officers ever captured, escaped along with Libian Abu Yahya al-Libi, Saudi Muhammad Jafar Jamal al-Kahtani and Syrian Abdullah Al-Shami.
All four prisoners had been individually found guilty of various acts of belligerence, and thus assigned to "Cell 119" in the days before the escape, the only cell set apart from the rest - though obstructed from guards' view.
On the night of July 15, the prisoners were all accounted for at the 01:50 headcount, then picked the lock of the cell, changed out of their prison uniforms, sneaked into the main camp area and crawled over a damaged wall and crossed a Soviet-era minefield to meet a getaway vehicle.[2]
After their disappearance was noted at the 03:45 headcount, a massive manhunt, including the use of helicopters, was dispatched, though didn't manage to find any of the escapees.
-
Seems like there's always an al-qaeda number two that gets it. Who is the top man? They're all number 2
-
Al zawarhi I guess. He's the biggest number 2 of all.
-
I call bullshit. Look for it on Obama Reelection campaign ads.
-
Seems like there's always an al-qaeda number two that gets it. Who is the top man? They're all number 2
Seems like there's always an al-qaeda number two that gets it. Who is the top man? They're all number 2
Yeah, I think they've killed the #2 about 15 times now.
But this guy was always listed as a top guy. He was always talked about as being more important than some of the bigger names. He was the comer.
Jarret Brachman, a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), states of al-Libi:
"He’s a warrior. He’s a poet. He’s a scholar. He’s a pundit. He’s a military commander. And he’s a very charismatic, young, brash rising star within Al-Qaeda, and I think he has become the heir apparent to Osama bin Laden in terms of taking over the entire global jihadist movement."
-
Seems like there's always an al-qaeda number two that gets it. Who is the top man? They're all number 2
Yeah, I think they've killed the #2 about 15 times now.
But this guy was always listed as a top guy. He was always talked about as being more important than some of the bigger names. He was the comer.
Jarret Brachman, a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), states of al-Libi:
"He’s a warrior. He’s a poet. He’s a scholar. He’s a pundit. He’s a military commander. And he’s a very charismatic, young, brash rising star within Al-Qaeda, and I think he has become the heir apparent to Osama bin Laden in terms of taking over the entire global jihadist movement."
Yeah, I think they've killed the #2 about 15 times now.
But this guy was always listed as a top guy. He was always talked about as being more important than some of the bigger names. He was the comer.
Jarret Brachman, a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), states of al-Libi:
"He’s a warrior. He’s a poet. He’s a scholar. He’s a pundit. He’s a military commander. And he’s a very charismatic, young, brash rising star within Al-Qaeda, and I think he has become the heir apparent to Osama bin Laden in terms of taking over the entire global jihadist movement."
Well they got him. Good on them I guess. When are they going to get heriberto lazcano lazcano? We should be worried about him and his ilk.
-
Yeah, I think they've killed the #2 about 15 times now.
But this guy was always listed as a top guy. He was always talked about as being more important than some of the bigger names. He was the comer.
Jarret Brachman, a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), states of al-Libi:
"He’s a warrior. He’s a poet. He’s a scholar. He’s a pundit. He’s a military commander. And he’s a very charismatic, young, brash rising star within Al-Qaeda, and I think he has become the heir apparent to Osama bin Laden in terms of taking over the entire global jihadist movement."
Well they got him. Good on them I guess. When are they going to get heriberto lazcano lazcano? We should be worried about him and his ilk.
Well they got him. Good on them I guess. When are they going to get heriberto lazcano lazcano? We should be worried about him and his ilk.
A lot tougher to get a drone into Mexico.
-
Peter Bergen:
"The news that Abu Yahya al-Libi, the No.2 leader of al Qaeda, is now confirmed to have been killed in a CIA drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region along the border with Afghanistan further underlines that the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 attacks is now more or less out of business.
Under President Barack Obama, CIA drone strikes have killed 15 of the most important players in al Qaeda, according to a count maintained by the New America Foundation (a nonpartisan think tank where I am a director). Similarly, President George W. Bush also authorized drone strikes that killed 16 important al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan while he was in office.
As a result, according to senior U.S. counterterrorism officials, there now remains only one leader of any consequence in al Qaeda and that is Ayman al-Zawahiri, the tetchy Egyptian surgeon who became the head of the group following the death of its founder, Osama bin Laden, in a U.S. Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan in May 2011.
...Some might say that that while al Qaeda the organization may be basically dead, its ideology continues to thrive and to inspire "lone wolves" to attack the United States.
In fact, lone wolves inspired by jihadist ideology have managed to kill a total of 17 Americans in the United States since 9/11, according to a tally maintained by the New America Foundation.
Meanwhile, 54 Americans are reported to be killed every year by lightning, according to the National Weather Service. In other words, to the average American, lightning is about 30 times more deadly than jihadist terrorism.
Few Americans harbor irrational fears about being killed by a lightning bolt. Abu Yahya al-Libi's death on Monday should remind them that fear of al Qaeda in its present state is even more irrational."
-
It's always fun to assassinate bad guys.
Well it is now, but......
So next time AQ has a successful terror strike against a foreign leader how do we preach the moral high ground?
Tell the world that we at least didn't torture them?
(for you born again doves)
WSS
-
Wait - I think I heard a bunch of leftists chanting that the drones and killing bin laden and al-libi will just
make terrorism worse !
-
It might be making the terrorism problem worse. That's a real concern. We kill a lot of innocent people this way. We kill family members this way. We create lots of potential new enemies this way. There are huge trade offs. Each time we kill someone over there, we create possible blow back. It's tough to know if, on balance, we're doing more harm than good. The only time I feel good about it is when we get a real target like al-Libi. They've wanted him for years and I'm glad he's dead. He's a dangerous guy who was planning dangerous things.
As for moral high ground, I'm not sure war is about claiming the moral high ground, or that this is about preaching the moral high ground to our enemies. It's about defending a way of life that is morally superior. It's about keeping them from killing Americans en masse.
There's an interesting story told in a new book coming out about the administration, and how they were faced with the nightmare scenario early on: the Pakistanis couldn't account for a nuclear weapon, and thought that it had fallen into the hands of terrorists. These are the realities we're facing, whether it's Bush, Obama, or Romney. And this is why we on a huge seek and destroy mission.
But you've got to do it right, or you risk making things worse. Absolutely.
-
And that's a pretty honest reply. I wish you'd do that more often ....
so much of the left bashed Bush that way, hence my post - but out of political expediency -
most of the left has flipped their emotional stance again..
-
And that's a pretty honest reply. I wish you'd do that more often ....
so much of the left bashed Bush that way, hence my post - but out of political expediency -
most of the left has flipped their emotional stance again..
And that's a pretty honest reply. I wish you'd do that more often ....
so much of the left bashed Bush that way, hence my post - but out of political expediency -
most of the left has flipped their emotional stance again..
Cal, you wouldn't know honesty if it latched on to your ass like a pit bull.
-
You wouldn't know me if you lived next door the last twenty years.
Do you ever leave your basement, ever? Live at your computer?
Like that song, you are "so much cooler online" ???
You are a sold out, partisan, bought and paid for hack, imho.
Where DO you get the Sheps? The Little Johnnie Woodpeckers?
Say, did you ever answer about DaveS? He live with you?
Or just work with you?
Just a hunch.
And yes, that was an honest question. I do honesty in a huge way.
And I was honestly paying you a compliment in my last post.
And just like that, you make me look like a genius.
You emotionally knee-jerked, and launched an angry personal insult in response, exactly like I say you do.
You lib weenies can't help yourselves. I have your number.
You just proved it, dimwit. Nice job.
(oops, I honestly paid you another compliment !)
-
US President Barack Obama confronted the ultimate security nightmare early in his administration -- the possibility that the Taliban had acquired a nuclear bomb, according to a new book published Tuesday.
The book, "Confront and Conceal" by New York Times chief Washington correspondent David Sanger, says Obama was told in a dramatic Oval Office meeting in early summer 2009 of "ambiguous" evidence supporting such a fear.
Intercepted conversations between members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) led intelligence agencies to warn the group could have a bomb, and the CIA picked up "chatter" of possible attacks on US cities, the book said.
But Sanger reports that no one in the intelligence community could be sure about the authenticity of the threat.
Some seasoned analysts believed that any danger was more likely to be posed by nuclear material combined into a radiological or "dirty" bomb.
Other officials in US spy agencies believed that there were serious doubts about the intelligence, but no one was willing to ignore the fears, amid concern about the security of Pakistan's fast growing nuclear arsenal.
Senior Obama administration officials have previously confided that the fear of a terrorist or insurgent group acquiring nuclear materials is the national security threat most likely to keep them awake at night.
Obama has made halting proliferation a signature of his presidency and was instrumental in the debut of a new global nuclear security summit, which took place for the second time in Seoul in March.
"There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places," he said in Seoul, warning that it would take just a small amount "to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people."
According to Sanger's book, Obama decided that with the 2009 case, he could not take any chances and dispatched a nuclear detect and disablement team to the region, though not directly to Pakistan, in case it was needed.
After several days of tension, Sanger wrote, the threat dissipated. Pakistan surveyed its arsenal and reported that no nuclear components were missing.
One school of thought about the incident suggested that Taliban members had been hoaxed and bought material from a third party that was useless in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Other officials believed that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had misunderstood the dialect of Taliban members on the intercepts, and been mislead into believing their worst fears, the book said.
However, Sanger quoted one official as saying that facing a possible nuclear crisis so early in Obama's presidency "created a lasting impression on all of us."
-
US President Barack Obama confronted the ultimate security nightmare early in his administration -- the possibility that the Taliban had acquired a nuclear bomb, according to a new book published Tuesday.
The book, "Confront and Conceal" by New York Times chief Washington correspondent David Sanger, says Obama was told in a dramatic Oval Office meeting in early summer 2009 of "ambiguous" evidence supporting such a fear.
Intercepted conversations between members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) led intelligence agencies to warn the group could have a bomb, and the CIA picked up "chatter" of possible attacks on US cities, the book said.
But Sanger reports that no one in the intelligence community could be sure about the authenticity of the threat.
Some seasoned analysts believed that any danger was more likely to be posed by nuclear material combined into a radiological or "dirty" bomb.
Other officials in US spy agencies believed that there were serious doubts about the intelligence, but no one was willing to ignore the fears, amid concern about the security of Pakistan's fast growing nuclear arsenal.
Senior Obama administration officials have previously confided that the fear of a terrorist or insurgent group acquiring nuclear materials is the national security threat most likely to keep them awake at night.
Obama has made halting proliferation a signature of his presidency and was instrumental in the debut of a new global nuclear security summit, which took place for the second time in Seoul in March.
"There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places," he said in Seoul, warning that it would take just a small amount "to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people."
According to Sanger's book, Obama decided that with the 2009 case, he could not take any chances and dispatched a nuclear detect and disablement team to the region, though not directly to Pakistan, in case it was needed.
After several days of tension, Sanger wrote, the threat dissipated. Pakistan surveyed its arsenal and reported that no nuclear components were missing.
One school of thought about the incident suggested that Taliban members had been hoaxed and bought material from a third party that was useless in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Other officials believed that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had misunderstood the dialect of Taliban members on the intercepts, and been mislead into believing their worst fears, the book said.
However, Sanger quoted one official as saying that facing a possible nuclear crisis so early in Obama's presidency "created a lasting impression on all of us."
US President Barack Obama confronted the ultimate security nightmare early in his administration -- the possibility that the Taliban had acquired a nuclear bomb, according to a new book published Tuesday.
The book, "Confront and Conceal" by New York Times chief Washington correspondent David Sanger, says Obama was told in a dramatic Oval Office meeting in early summer 2009 of "ambiguous" evidence supporting such a fear.
Intercepted conversations between members of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) led intelligence agencies to warn the group could have a bomb, and the CIA picked up "chatter" of possible attacks on US cities, the book said.
But Sanger reports that no one in the intelligence community could be sure about the authenticity of the threat.
Some seasoned analysts believed that any danger was more likely to be posed by nuclear material combined into a radiological or "dirty" bomb.
Other officials in US spy agencies believed that there were serious doubts about the intelligence, but no one was willing to ignore the fears, amid concern about the security of Pakistan's fast growing nuclear arsenal.
Senior Obama administration officials have previously confided that the fear of a terrorist or insurgent group acquiring nuclear materials is the national security threat most likely to keep them awake at night.
Obama has made halting proliferation a signature of his presidency and was instrumental in the debut of a new global nuclear security summit, which took place for the second time in Seoul in March.
"There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials and these dangerous materials are still vulnerable in too many places," he said in Seoul, warning that it would take just a small amount "to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people."
According to Sanger's book, Obama decided that with the 2009 case, he could not take any chances and dispatched a nuclear detect and disablement team to the region, though not directly to Pakistan, in case it was needed.
After several days of tension, Sanger wrote, the threat dissipated. Pakistan surveyed its arsenal and reported that no nuclear components were missing.
One school of thought about the incident suggested that Taliban members had been hoaxed and bought material from a third party that was useless in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Other officials believed that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had misunderstood the dialect of Taliban members on the intercepts, and been mislead into believing their worst fears, the book said.
However, Sanger quoted one official as saying that facing a possible nuclear crisis so early in Obama's presidency "created a lasting impression on all of us."
This article begs the question: okay, so what?
WSS
-
Bunker said:
it is bullshit, the dude has been dead for days and they waited until the day Scott Walker smoked Obama's ass in a recall vote staged by Obama's union stooges.
Obama FAILED! and heck posted this as a distraction,
Ladies and gentlemen, today's Republican Party.
-
Bunker said:
it is bullshit, the dude has been dead for days and they waited until the day Scott Walker smoked Obama's ass in a recall vote staged by Obama's union stooges.
Obama FAILED! and heck posted this as a distraction,
Ladies and gentlemen, today's Republican Party.
Ladies and gentlemen, today's Republican Party.
That's not fair. Bunker is just Retarded.
-
But it's pretty typical. Everything works backwards from "Obama failed."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login