East African Al Qaeda Leader Killed in Somalia

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:03:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, on the FBI's most wanted list for allegedly masterminding the 1998 U.S. Embassies bombing, has been killed in Somalia.

Is he really dead? He was buried before Somalian officials knew who he was, but when they realized from the documents that had been on his person, they exhumed him and did DNA testing.

The U.S. says the killing is a big blow to al Qaida in East Africa. Others say it won't have much impact, especially in Somalia:

J. Peter Pham, director of the Michael S. Ansari Africa Center at the Atlantic Council, said that Mohammed's death would have little impact operationally on the Islamist insurgency in Somalia, which is led by al Shabaab. "Even the foreign fighters present in Somalia are under Shabaab control, rather than the aegis of al Qaeda in east Africa," he said....Also, al Shabaab has its own ties al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula."

< Anthony Weiner to Take Leave, Seek Treatment | Sunday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

East African Al Qaeda Leader Killed in Somalia | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:02:51 AM EST

when he was running for office, once said that he would negotiate without preconditions with our adversaries.

That was then.

Now it seems as if the administration is just as happy to forget about meeting and talking with our adversaries. Killing them would appear to be an acceptable alternative.

Of course, the question is whether this means of diplomacy makes us any safer or whether it simply creates an even more dangerous situation for us and the world.

Do you actually believe that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:03:54 AM EST

al Qaeda would keep any agreement with us that did anything besides surrender to them?

Let us examine again what CNN's Peter Arnett learned from bin Ladin in his 3/97 interview.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: ...... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

There are many things I disagree with Obama about, but killing our enemies is not one of them.


To me, (none / 0) (#3)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:58:10 AM EST

"...(The U.S.) must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world."

To me, this is a point of view worthy of discussion and negotiation.

Personally, I would be most grateful if the US would cease its decades-long policy of intervening aggressively against Muslims and Muslim countries.

So we killed him.

Now what?


Negotiate what?? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:01:08 PM EST

al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood are all terrorist organizations.

I think you want to discuss whether or not we should be hanged, stoned or beheaded.

Their definition of agressive is us doing anything they don't like.


I think (none / 0) (#5)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:49:03 PM EST

that from their point of view the discussion might revolve around our support for militarily and financially unjust and cruel leaders - dating from the Shaw of Iran through to Saddam. That's aggressive. Invading and occupying their countries is another action that is by definition aggressive.

From the Muslim point of view, our unequivocal support of Israel - including the treatment of the Palestinians - has also been a point of contention.

If you take the position that terrorists just like to terrorize for the sake of it, that's one thing.

But if you believe as I do that terrorism is a tactic - one that is relatively inexpensive - and effective against a bullying nuclear power - I think it is worthwhile discussing issues.

You know - we have tremendous military hardware.
We use drones to bomb "suspected militants". We kill children.
To those people, we are terrorists. And unrelentingly so.

We talk, or we may die.


Yes, we do support Israel (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:22:39 PM EST

The only democracy and our only allie in the ME.

Yes, we supported the Shah until Jimmy Carter threw him out and birthed the terrorists expansion we have seen since then.

Thanks, Jimmy.

I seem to remember that the answer to what would happen if we left the Arabian Peninsula was that jihad would continue if we didn't let them do what they wanted to do.

We invaded Iraq at the invitation of Kuwait and other Muslim countries after Saddam invaded Kuwait and was eyeing SA. We re-invaded because Saddam convinced the world that he had WMD's.

I also remember Kosovo and that we would not support England and France when Egypt erupted in the 50's.

The issue is not land or money. The issue is the corruption of a religion by radical terrorists pushing their agenda of establishing radical Islam through out the world.

In their mind there is nothing to negotiate.

BTW - As I was dressing for church this AM I saw a bit on FNC where a peer reviewed study shows that 81% of Muslim mosques studied supports jihad.


If (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 03:09:57 PM EST

your view of the Iranian Revolution - the one in which Iranian nationals deposed a tyrant - as a bad thing, we have little to talk about. "Jimmy" didn't throw him out. The Iranian people did.

He was a horrible tyrant.
He was there by virtue of American influence and assistance.
Do you think that the people over there didn't notice that?

You don't seem to be interested in seeing the world from our adversaries point of view.

Since you mentioned Church... What do you suppose that Jesus meant when he said "love thine enemy"?
I think he meant that we should try to understand them.

The complete quote is as follows:

"Ye have heard that it bath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say Unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

Matthew 5:43-48

I think old J.C. has a point.


As a famous British PM once said (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 03:40:07 PM EST

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.
Winston Churchill

As another (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 03:50:02 PM EST

English PM said:

"Peace in our time."

How'd that work out?


So the defender of Britian against the Nazis (none / 0) (#11)
by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:01:13 PM EST

is to be refuted by the words of Neville Chamberlain?

I thought you thought Sir Winston was the bees knees, unless he said something you don't agree with, I suppose.

;-)


Jaw jaw (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:30:48 PM EST

is always better than war war when you are trying to obtain an advantage without giving up something.

See Iran's nuclear program.

See Hitler's goal and success with Chamberlain.


: "An eye for an eye (none / 0) (#19)
by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 05:46:01 PM EST

and a tooth for a tooth."
That has a familiar ring to it..............

The Shah was no worse or no better (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:08:11 PM EST

than what he was replaced with. He had two things on his side.

Iran was being westernized under him. Plus, we had some influence with him. We have had none for 32 years.
He was on our side and didn't support terrorism.

Seeing the world through an opponent's eyes is useful and that is how I reluctantly, years ago, came to the understanding that we cannot negotiate with radical Muslims.

As for quotations, I give you Luke 22 Vs 36:

"Then he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."


You avoided (none / 0) (#20)
by lentinel on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:12:37 PM EST

my question:

What do you think Jesus meant when He said,
"Love your enemies"?

Do you think he was naive?


: No, I did not avoid (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:53:26 PM EST

you. I answered as follows.

As for quotations, I give you Luke 22 Vs 36:
"Then he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Jesus nave??
I think he knows all our faults.

hanged, stoned or beheaded?" (none / 0) (#14)
by NYShooter on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:13:04 PM EST

So many choices, hmmm, let's see..

how 'bout annihilated at wedding reception by cruise missile?

hey, waddayou mean, "not on the list."


: How about burned to death at your (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:33:42 PM EST

desk in the World Trade Center?
Walking down the hall in the Pentagon?
Blown up riding a train in Spain?
Need more?

And oddly enough (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 03:50:46 PM EST

Muslims who serve in our services will tell you these terrorists have violated Islam and because of what they do to others they are fine with orders to capture or kill them and they are fine participating in those ventures. They are very angry about the picture of Islam that these terrorists claim is Islam and they keep scorching the world with. If fellow serving Muslims aren't going to be upset with what these people have done to others why aren't we? It isn't exactly a falsehood that they have planned out and murdered us too.


Exactly, MT (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:10:08 PM EST

The issue is not land or money. The issue is the corruption of a religion by radical terrorists pushing their agenda of establishing radical Islam through out the world


Hey, they can't do that!! (none / 0) (#15)
by NYShooter on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:18:44 PM EST

At least not until we're through establishing radical capitalism through out the world.


Been in the catnip?? (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:34:48 PM EST

We've been through the facts (none / 0) (#22)
by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:58:37 PM EST

here before:

John: ... I mean, what will it take? That last speech literally made no sense. It was crazy drunken bar talk! Islamic radicals are like COMMUNISM?! (gets speech on laptop) If we don't fight terrorists in Iraq they'll build a fundamentalist terrorist state stretching from Spain to Indonesia? What the f*ck? Even assuming Spain, which last time I checked is 95% Roman Catholic, goes down, you gotta assume France, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, all eight hundred million Hindus in India, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore would be somewhat of an obstacle.
Tyrone: To be fair, you're going west-to-east. Maybe he meant a fundamentalist terrorist state stretching from Spain to Indonesia going east-to-west. Going that way, there's only the U.S. The President could be warning us that if we don't prevail in Iraq, the United States will become a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist state.

Repost -- The Crazification Factor


DA, or is it Harry?? (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:52:22 PM EST

I know you are just trying to provoke an untoward response, and it isn't working. But I do refer you to my calm, reasoned comment.

The issue is not land or money. The issue is the corruption of a religion by radical terrorists pushing their agenda of establishing radical Islam through out the world

You may disagree with that at your leisure.

After all, we've only had 20 plus years of multiple proofs.


I'm sorry that my style (none / 0) (#24)
by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:17:18 PM EST

is so indistinct that it reminds you of those commentators.

That aside, the past 20 years have demonstrated that the chances of radical Islam establishing itself throughout the world has a probability of slim to none, and I'm sorry if this fact gripes your grits.


The issue is not (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:19:55 AM EST

whether or not they will be successful.

The issue is the number of people killed and our society changed by their continual attempts.


We lose far more people per year (none / 0) (#26)
by Raymond Bell on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 09:43:20 AM EST

from auto accidents than the total # of Americans who have died in terrorist attacks to date,(or ever will), so that dog won't hunt.

: Actually if we had lost WWII (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 09:05:21 PM EST

you could probably have said something similar.
Look, if you want to oppose the war on terror, be my guest.
And BTW..... I think we need to include ALL the people killed by radical Muslim terrorists,not just Americans.

Raymond (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 09:26:51 AM EST

if you aint Harry/DA there isn't a cow in Texas.

Have a nice day, I am not gonna play your game.

Ask Jeralyn (none / 0) (#30)
by Raymond Bell on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 09:34:47 AM EST

to check the IP log for where I'm coming from, she'll tell you that it isn't associated with either individual you're talking about.


: Raymond Bell (none / 0) (#31)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 12:06:35 PM EST

you have been banned here using other IP addresses. Please stop posting.