| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Better question: does it really matter? While this CBS report gives good reason to believe Zawahiri may have been killed -- according to the usual "experts" -- this CNN report indicates there is no "credible evidence." But while the entire intelligence community ponders this temporal question, a more "eternal" question is: will the slaying of individual terrorists -- be they Zawahiri or bin Laden -- have any real effects on the long term goals of the jihad? Likening jihadis to the ever-sprouting heads of the hydra monster of legend, I addressed this question here, when there was similarly a lot of hubbub about whether or not al-Qaeda in Iraq's Abu Hamza was killed."Exclusive: Al Qaeda No. 2 Injured?" from CBS, August 1:
(CBS) Ayman al-Zawahiri - the second most powerful leader in al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden's No. 2 - may be critically wounded and possibly dead, CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan reports exclusively.CBS News has obtained a copy of an intercepted letter from sources in Pakistan, which urgently requests a doctor to treat al-Zawahiri. He's believed to be somewhere in Pakistan's remote tribal areas of Pakistan.
The letter refers to Sheikh Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri by name - and says that he is in "severe pain" and his "injuries are infected."
It is reportedly written by local Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, whose signature and seal are visible on the letter.
The Taliban logo and the Mehsud's seal have been confirmed by experts as legitimate.
The letter is dated July 29 - one day after a U.S. air strike that killed al Qaeda weapons expert Abu Khabab al-Masri, and five other Arabs in South Waziristan.
U.S. authorities have said they do not have information that al-Zawahiri was present during Monday's strike, or that he was injured.
However, a counter-intelligence expert and other U.S. officials confirmed to CBS News that the U.S. is looking into reports that al-Zawahiri is dead.
Logan reports that while there have been false death rumors regarding al-Zawahiri before, there have been no denials yet from Pakistan, the U.S. or al Qaeda Web sites.
Posted by Raymond at August 2, 2008 10:33 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
In fifty years, all of them (and many of us) will be dead.
The focus on individuals shows why it's wrong to treat terrorism as just a criminal act. Picking up the ringleader of a gang is usually the death knell for that group. Jihad has been going on since long before Zawahiri drew his first breath. His death, and even Osama's, won't stop it. It's bigger than both of them. Even al Qaeda will outlive them.
Posted by: PMK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 2, 2008 11:15 AM
Jihad is an enduring institution that will carry on for al long as Muslims exist, but Al Qaeda as an organization can be and is seriously degraded when its leadership is decimated.
Posted by: Cornelius at August 2, 2008 11:46 AM
Does it matter? No, not unless muhammedism died with him.
Posted by: justamomof4 at August 2, 2008 11:48 AM
As long as the Qur'an is considered the word of Allah, the jihad will not go "quietly into that good night". There are no shortage of sociopaths to lead this warrior culture. In our struggle against the jihad it is not enough to catch the fish, we must drain the lake they live in as well.
Posted by: tanstaafl at August 2, 2008 11:56 AM
all above points are valid, islam is the problem, but does it not feel good to see that sob with the target on his forehead dead? let other outspoken islamists speak out,and know that they will meet their allah faster than a speeding bullet.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 2, 2008 12:04 PM
will the slaying of individual terrorists -- be they Zawahiri or bin Laden -- have any real effects on the long term goals of the jihad?
I believe quite strongly Yes. It shows the leaders they're likely to be pulverized, which deters new ones from stepping up, and preoccupies the current ones with their personal security, spending time and resources that could otherwise have gone towards killing more infidels.
But I think the most important effect is the iconic value of taking down the most famous of their leaders. I know it's hard to document, but it sure makes it clear to the Jihadis that their 'Allah' might not be so all-powerful in protecting them.
I think it's a worthwhile activity, indeed.
Posted by: Henrik at August 2, 2008 12:15 PM
...Sheikh Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri ... is in "severe pain" and his "injuries are infected."
Excellent. Maybe the good Doktor's goats have finally come home to roast, er roost. What a sanctimonious prick.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at August 2, 2008 12:41 PM
"Sheikh Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri ... is in "severe pain" and his "injuries are infected."
Allah brings nothing to Muslims except pain, misery, poverty and death...
If he is injured or dead, it is Allahs will..
Allah hates Muslims.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 2, 2008 1:12 PM
Mabye it doesn't really matter in the long run if Zawahiri is dead. But at least it's one less and a leader at that.
I don't give the news story a lot of credence, however. We've had lots of false alarms in the past.
Posted by: Always On Watch at August 2, 2008 1:14 PM
Better question: does it really matter?
If we kill enough of their leadership, then that will greatly reduce their ability to do despicable things.
I know that we have a policy against assassination. But we should make an exception when it comes to radical muslims. Like Israel, we should snuff out as many of those people as we can. The world will be a far better place for it.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at August 2, 2008 1:35 PM
exsgtbrown, you got it. If he's dead, it's allah's will, if he's still alive, it's allah's will. That's their standard mantra.
LMAO @ your last sentence.
Posted by: gymgal at August 2, 2008 1:36 PM
Is he dead or not? Let's hope so.
Does it matter? Not much.
But despite that we can consider it only one of life's small pleasures, a dead jihadi is always a good thing.
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at August 2, 2008 1:56 PM
Well gosh, seems like every time we forget to 'coordinate' these air strikes with our good friends and allies in the ISI, we end up taking out pre-schools, orphanages, and hospitals, or so claim the pakis. Of course, we also occassionally disptch one of their REAL allies.
Posted by: Infidel33 at August 2, 2008 2:00 PM
Dead jihadists are still better than live ones and, like Oliver Twist, I'd like more.
Posted by: Wellington at August 2, 2008 2:02 PM
Taliban denies he's dead.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92A7PLO0&show_article=1
"Pakistani intelligence say they think al-Qaida explosives expert Abu Khabab al-Masri was among six people killed in Monday's missile strike but apparently they do not have the body.
Al-Masri also was reported killed in the January 2006 strike that targeted al-Zawahri but his body was never found.
(A miracle! The same man died twice and both times his body disappeared!)
The missile strike on Monday hit a compound that used to be a religious school near Azam Warsak village, about two miles from the Afghan border. Umar claimed only religious students died in the attack."
True to form, the US killed innocent students and is putting out "evil propaganda" to justify it, according to the Taliban.
OT, does anyone know who Mark S. Hanna is? He could very well be a lawyer from NJ, who knows?
He considers the view that:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/countering_islamism.html
Posted by: PMK
at August 2, 2008 2:27 PM
Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri by name - and says that he is in "severe pain good he's getting a taste of what satan (allha)has in store for him could it be that the jihadi get turned into the promisd vergins
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at August 2, 2008 2:32 PM
I hit post accidentally.
This guy would call extremists anyone who sees Islam itself as promoting terror. He wants us to see the difference between Islamist and Islamic views:
The error both of these extremes foster is the failure to recognize that two genuine views of Islam exist today: The Islamic view and the Islamist view. Neither can be dismissed by denying its existence or pretending one has hijacked the other. Both are here to stay and must be addressed for what they are.
According to Baran, the primary difference between the two is not that one commits violent acts of terrorism while the other does not. On the contrary, many Islamist groups don't necessarily engage in violent acts at all. Terrorism and violence aren't the main ingredients in what makes an Islamist group dangerous and a threat to US and western security.
The real differentiator is the mission or teleological objective of each Muslim group. For Islamists, or those who adhere to the ideology of Islamism, the ultimate end is the establishment of a global political superstructure called the Caliphate where Allah's law reigns supreme. Islamists advocate comprehensive Jihad to achieve this worldwide Islamic State, with violence as only one means of achieving the goal.
In contrast, Islamic adherents reject the idea that Islam mandates a global superstructure built on Shari'ah law. In other words, it's the endgame that separates them, not the means.
HUH? If the means don't separate them that suggests that both approve of violence. And what is the endgame of the Islamics?
Posted by: PMK at August 2, 2008 2:38 PM
PMK . . .NJ? Interestingly there is another NJ connection (scroll down for global connections).
Such politic may have been formed by these "connection$".
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at August 2, 2008 2:49 PM
Good news. Now if Israel takes out Iran's nuke facilities, then we really have some progress.
Posted by: Spot on at August 2, 2008 2:52 PM
Zawahiri being dead is a good thing. It lets them all know death is in their future. Death at a time and place of our choosing.
Islam needs a place for Muslims to die.The Afcrapistan Pakcrapistan Border is as good a place as any. Let all who wish to go. go.
Causality ratios are not in Islams favor.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at August 2, 2008 3:28 PM
The best way to defeat islam is to capture the black rock and /or destroy it.
sorry if that sounds blunt but it is what would work.
Oh yes they'd riot for a while and the West would finally have to get off its duff and put them in their place for good.
Then once all they held dears has been shattered they may come to their senses and try to live normal respectable lives like everyone else.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 2, 2008 3:31 PM
Henrik and others "yes it matters, it's a good thing he's dead or dying" are missing, I think, an essential point. Of course it's a good thing, and of course it weakens the appeal of the al-Qaeda brand of jihad. But given that killing individual generals of jihad can only suppress but never defeat jihad, the question of cost/benefit and of our limited resources arises. And then soon enough we have to confront the task of destroying the cult and deprogramming its members. And the better cost-benefit ratio then is obviously on the symbolic targets, like Mecca, Medina and al Aqsa mosque. It's also a much more humane approach than slaughtering the cult's brainwashed minions. I dont think they would riot, Ummah Gummah, rioting is an organized show of force when weakness is perceived.
But of course mere destruction of symbols is not enough, a campaign of de-programming, re-education, conversion, etc. needs to take place and we cant even reeducate our homegrown socialists.
Free and freedom-loving people have some serious weaknesses that the enemy became rather good at exploiting.
at August 2, 2008 4:13 PM
mORE THEN BIN LADEN THIS GUYS DEATH IS VERY IMPORTANT BIN LADENS A MONEY MAN THIS GUY IS A SPIRITUAL LEADER AND A PLANNER.
BY THE WAY CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHY KILL YOURSELF OVER 72 VIRGINS I WOULD RATHER HAVE ONE WELL TRAINED HOOKER LOL.
THATS WHERE THE MUSLIMS PROBLEM LIES.
at August 2, 2008 4:14 PM
spcbat, i believe that at least one traditional interpretation (référence, anyone?) is that the virgins of paradise are, ahem, experienced, but that their flap of skin there grows right back.
Nothing a modern British surgeon couldnt handle of course, not a huge miracle anymore.
at August 2, 2008 4:25 PM
Kuch im just saying i think i would need more incentive say" 100k cash a new car maybe throw in 100 camels i would be all for it but 72 virgins some grapes and figs i dont get it.
Posted by: spcbat at August 2, 2008 4:44 PM
heroyalwhyness,
Thanks for the link. AT doesn't tell us who their authors are. They just post them.
Now it makes a little more sense.
at August 2, 2008 8:24 PM
It doesn't matter if Zawahiri is dead. As long as there are wealthy Muslims willing to fund Jihad, there will be an endless supply of Zawahiris
Read about The Golden Chain, particularly from the 9/11 Commission Report
Osama and Zawahiri are just hired hands. They are just middle management in the Jihad hierarchy. The real top men are the ones who supply the money, and decide how it is to be spent. Al Queda is just a small piece of the operation. The radical imams get a paycheck, and not primarily from collections from their congregations. The radical madrassahs are funded from somewhere. They are the feeder networks in the Jihad pipeline
Posted by: PapaBear at August 2, 2008 8:25 PM
This is just wishful thinking on the part of the left wing. It would be a shame for the NY Times to lose such a valued contributor...
Posted by: Eversor at August 2, 2008 8:36 PM
The letter refers to Sheikh Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri by name - and says that he is in "severe pain" and his "injuries are infected."
Aww, that is too bad. Maybe some of that islamic science can help.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 2, 2008 10:24 PM
The best way to defeat islam is to capture the black rock and/or destroy it.
Since the rock is not a human, nor even an animal, no objections to this.
Actually, since stone worship, Hajj, Umra and the lot are all pre-Islamic pagan rituals, the Muslims shouldn't mind either. Their religion explicitly forbids idol worship, says Allah is trancendent, and rejects paganism. Muhammad just happened to leave the Hajj/Umra rituals in place when he took over Mecca. For profit presumably.
And, since nothing happens except Allah wills it (right?), getting to the black stone and pulverizing it must be seen as the will of Allah, nothing to get upset about.
Problem? I don't see no problem.
Posted by: Henrik at August 3, 2008 4:02 AM
Maybe some of that islamic science can help...
Yeah. The nabi sez drink 4 gallons of camel urine and call me in the morning if your condition does not improve.
nabi ZK
at August 3, 2008 8:00 AM
nabi,
Good advice, that camel urine works every time.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 3, 2008 8:46 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)