Missile attack in yemen

[Guest]

CNN Article

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. missile strike kills al Qaeda chief

CIA drone launched missile

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 Posted: 12:34 PM EST (1734 GMT)

Yemen (CNN) -- In a CNN interview, a top Pentagon official called a missile strike that killed six suspected al Qaeda members in Yemen "a very successful tactical operation" and said the U.S. must "keep the pressure on" terrorists wherever they are.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told CNN's Maria Ressa "one hopes each time you get a success like that, not only to have gotten rid of somebody dangerous, but to have imposed changes in their tactics and operations and procedures."

Sources had earlier told CNN an unmanned CIA Predator drone launched a "Hellfire" missile early Monday and struck a car carrying the men, including the al Qaeda chief in that country who was wanted for the bombing of the USS Cole.

It was the first direct U.S. strike against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network outside Afghanistan since the U.S.-led war on terrorism was launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States.

"Sometimes when people are changing," Wolfowitz said, "they expose themselves in new ways. So we just got to keep the pressure on everywhere we are able to, and we've got to deny the sanctuaries everywhere we are able to, and we've got to put pressure on every government that is giving these people support to get out of that business."

Video from the scene showed the car blown completely apart, with most of it reduced to black ash in the desert.

Sources identified one of the dead as Abu Ali, also known as Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, a former bin Laden security guard who was believed to have played a major role in the October 2000 attack on the destroyer Cole that killed 17 sailors.

The attack took place in the oil rich Marib province in Yemen.

Walid Al-Saqqaf, managing editor of the Yemen Times, told CNN that Ali was identified as the one in the vehicle by a mark on his leg, which was blown off in the blast and found near the scene.

He said Ali, who has been on the run and was believed to be harbored by tribesmen, has been the source of a massive hunt by security forces in Yemen. An attempt to capture him late last year failed. That botched attempt left more than a dozen security forces dead.

About 50 U.S. Special Forces troops have been in the country training Yemeni security forces. There was no immediate indication they took part in this strike.

President Bush did not comment directly on the incident in Yemen during a campaign rally in Arkansas, but he did say the United States is pursuing "international killers."

"The only way to find them is to be patient and steadfast and hunt them down. And the United States of America is doing just that," Bush said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of Ali at the Pentagon briefing Monday when questioned about the attack.

"It would be a very good thing if he were out of business," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld said the U.S.-Yemen relationship "has been a good one and it's ongoing." He noted that Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh visited the Pentagon and agreed to cooperate in the war on terrorism.

"As a result, we have some folks in that country that have been working with the government and helping them think through ways of doing things," Rumsfeld said.

"And it's been a good cooperation, and we've shared some information, and we think that over time it ought to be beneficial."

Rumsfeld said a number of al Qaeda members are known to be hiding in Yemen, slipping into the country by sea and through its sparsely populated border areas -- what he said are used "advantageously by terrorists."

<span id='postcolor'>

Now, what are the interesting points here (besides an UAV was used for the hit):

[*] The UAV was CIA's, not the military's

[*] Apperently the Yemen government wasn't informed

[*] It was a clear break with president Ford's Executive Order (11905) that prohibits US government employees from participating or engaging in assasinations.

[Stag 0]

Er, CIA did something right?

[zverushka 0]

Well, its good that al-qaeda people were killed, so what if it breaks some law made by gerald ford 40 yrs ago.

[Sam Samson 0]

denoir's pc front is on the move again.

1. I see.

2. apparently you're speculating

3. president ford had heads of state in mind, not illegal combatants bent on the destruction of the US.

hello, light is on, anybody home?

*knocks on denoir's forehead*

we're at war.

[Placebo 29]

If these people had committed crimes should they not have been arrested and prosecuted under international laws?

[edc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hello, light is on, anybody home?

*knocks on denoir's forehead*

we're at war.

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

Am I mistaken or was that law that ford (I thought it was Carter) made recently reapeled.  What somewhat surprises me is not that we took out the car(I figured that when I heard about a terrorist's car exploding, since cars usually don't just explode) but that we're saying we did it.  If the Yemeni gov. was informed, I'm sure someone would of warned them that they were about to be killed.  Also we may not have had the time to tell the Yemeni's about it.

edit:They sure wouldn't have a trial for someone they captured(and these guys weren't even captured) so why the hell should we make the effort.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

The U.S. pull these sort of stunts and then they wonder why everyone hates them and why everyone wants to blow them up

[Tovarish 0]

I don't think there has ever been a war in which either side followed the "rules" they or others applied to themselves by the letter.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 05 2002,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">apparently you're speculating<span id='postcolor'>

Not quite

This is actually a big deal. Technically it is an act of war (against Yemen) and a violation of numerous international treaties.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">president ford had heads of state in mind, not illegal combatants bent on the destruction of the US.<span id='postcolor'>

And who is to judge if the right people have been targeted? The CIA? Oh yes, we know how good they are.

I have no problem with AQ or any other terrorists getting whacked. But supporting assasinations like this is like supporing an idea of giving the police the authority to shoot people they think are criminals. There are reasons that we have legal systems in democratic countries. Shoot first, ask questions later does not have a place in a civilized society.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

we're at war.<span id='postcolor'>

That's exactly the problem. By standard definition there is no war. Using the "war on terror" as an excuse for blowing up "terrorists" is a circular argument, since both "terror" and "terrorist" are very undefined terms. You have no strict definitions there and it gives the ones doing the killing the opportunity to form it into anything they want.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 05 2002,23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shoot first, ask questions later does not have a place in a civilized society.<span id='postcolor'>

I'll refer you to look up Ghandi's quote when he was asked his opinion on the West's civilized society.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 05 2002,23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] The UAV was CIA's, not the military's.<span id='postcolor'>

A blatant lie; everyone knows the CIA is incompetent. Perhaps there was a wedding reception in the area they intended to hit?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 05 2002,23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] Apperently the Yemen government wasn't informed.<span id='postcolor'>

"American officials said the Yemeni government had been kept informed about the operation."

The NY Times

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 05 2002,23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] It was a clear break with president Ford's  Executive Order (11905) that prohibits US government employees from participating or engaging in assasinations.<span id='postcolor'>

Were the 17 sailors aboard the Cole "assassinated?" There's a difference between an assassination and a surgical military (okay, "paramilitary") strike.

Let's see:

-- Six confirmed dead tangos, including one of OBL's "inner circle."

-- No collateral damage.

-- No friendly casualties.

Yeah, I'm freakin' emotionally distraught that this guy got dirt-napped.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 06 2002,00<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Were the 17 sailors aboard the Cole "assassinated?" There's a difference between an assassination and a surgical military (okay, "paramilitary") strike.<span id='postcolor'>

No, that was a terrorist act, perhaps. Or assasination. Not a surgical military strike.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's see:

-- Six confirmed dead tangos, including one of OBL's "inner circle."

-- No collateral damage.

-- No friendly casualties.

Yeah, I'm freakin' emotionally distraught that this guy got dirt-napped.

<span id='postcolor'>

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not saying it is bad that terrorists get whacked. I am talking about that it sets a precedence for future covert paramilitary actions that may have a bit of a different nature. It is never a good idea of giving paramilitary units/intelligence agencies free hands. They push it as far as they can. That is why we have politicians to set boundaries for their actions. The original US ban on political assasinations came after a number of paramilitary operations blew back into the face of the US. It is funny how quickly people forget.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

"American officials said the Yemeni government had been kept informed about the operation."

The NY Times

<span id='postcolor'>

Yemen says otherwise according to reuters article.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,0008)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 06 2002,0000)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Were the 17 sailors aboard the Cole "assassinated?" There's a difference between an assassination and a surgical military (okay, "paramilitary") strike.<span id='postcolor'>

No, that was a terrorist act, perhaps. Or assasination. Not a surgical military strike.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm a little confused here. Are you talking about the Cole or the Predator?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,0008)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are missing the point entirely. I'm not saying it is bad that terrorists get whacked. I am talking about that it sets a precedence for future covert paramilitary actions that may have a bit of a different nature. It is never a good idea of giving paramilitary units/intelligence agencies free hands. They push it as far as they can. That is why we have politicians to set boundaries for their actions. The original US ban on political assasinations came after a number of paramilitary operations blew back into the face of the US. It is funny how quickly people forget.<span id='postcolor'>

Who's saying that the CIA had free reign? The strike was apparently coordinated with the Yemeni government. And this was not a "political assassination." The subject was a known high-ranking member of a terrorist organization that has declared de facto war against the U.S. and the western world.

Would it be better if the Hellfires had come from a military Predator? Is that the point of contention? If so, why?

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 06 2002,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm a little confused here. Are you talking about the Cole or the Predator?<span id='postcolor'>

I was talking about the Cole. But you are probably right, both cases are proably similar in nature.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who's saying that the CIA had free reign? The strike was apparently coordinated with the Yemeni government. And this was not a "political assassination." The subject was a known high-ranking member of a terrorist organization that has declared de facto war against the U.S. and the western world.

Would it be better if the Hellfires had come from a military Predator? Is that the point of contention? If so, why?<span id='postcolor'>

The point was that according to European media (that quotes Yemeni officials) the Yemeni governement was not informed - as a matter of fact it had refused the US permission to search for suspected terrorists within the country.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Nov. 05 2002,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The U.S. pull these sort of stunts and then they wonder why everyone hates them and why everyone wants to blow them up<span id='postcolor'>

I don't hate them. Who else would make "Buffy the Vampire Slayer?"

[bn880 5]

I agree with the Swede... and he has better sources than NY Times. (there is life outside the US you know)

The US is really going off in a bad direction... looks like they are really pushing for WW3 anyway possible. It's like USSR and 1930's Germany combined.

[FSPilot 0]

Assassination!?!?!?!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=assassination

as·sas·si·nate   Pronunciation Key  (-ss-nt)

tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates

To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

This was not a political attack, this was an act of war agaisnt a known terrorist.  So don't start talking about assassination.  Were at war with terrorists and countrys that harbor them, apparently Yemen now.

Why are all these people hating the U.S. now? We were attacked and you'd better be sure we're going to fight back. What's so hard to get about that?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 06 2002,00:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Were at war with terrorists and countrys that harbor them, apparently Yemen now.<span id='postcolor'>

You are not at war with Yemen. There has been no declaration of war.

Again, amazing how people refuse to listen: I have no problem with terrorists being brought to justice. However: where is the proof that those were terrorists? Because the CIA says that they know that they are terrorists? There is a reason we have courts of law. Now, blowing up suspected terrorists in Afganistan can be easily justified by the fact that USA was at war with the Taliban. But Yemen? Who gives the US the right to kill foregin citizens in foreigin countries? It is the same principle that you are trying to fight; the one that the terrorist use.

Ok, let me use an analogy:

We all know that criminals are bad. If we declare a war on crime, that would be good right? Ok, so let's skip the courts of law and let the policemen shoot suspected criminals. No questions asked.

Would you like that, or do you see a danger in that system?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,05:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir

You are not at war with Yemen. There has been no declaration of war.<span id='postcolor'>

We've declared war with terrorists and the countrys that harbor them. A known terrorist was in Yemen, and they were not allowing us to search their country for terrorists. I don't know about you, but it looks like they're harboring that terrorist.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir

However: where is the proof that those were terrorists? Because the CIA says that they know that they are terrorists?<span id='postcolor'>

Who else are we supposed to trust? The CIA is our intelligence agency, we have to be able to trust them, and we do. We've got no reason not to.

But I agree with you partly. We should of arrested him and brought him to justice. The thing is, it isn't every day you have a perfect shot at a suspected terrorist head-honcho without endangering a single innocent life.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/05/yemen.blast/index.html

An attempt to capture him late last year failed. That botched attempt left more than a dozen security forces dead.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir

Who gives the US the right to kill foregin citizens in foreigin countries? It is the same principle that you are trying to fight; the one that the terrorist use.<span id='postcolor'>

We are at war with terrorists, doesn't matter where they are. We're also at war with countrys that harbor terrorists.

[bn880 5]

WHAT THE?

So both of you are saying the US is at war with most of the world, because that's where thousands of people are "loving" the US more and more.

You Americans don't fool your selves, you are not fighting a dozen men and Bin Laden, you are just creating more and more enemies for your selves. (Or your Govt and media is)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 06 2002,01:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are at war with terrorists, doesn't matter where they are.  We're also at war with countrys that harbor terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, the US and Osama bin Laden makes a perfect pair. He is at war with America and pledges to kill Americans everywhere no matter what. You are at war with terrorism and pledge to kill them everywhere no matter what.

A match made in heaven (or hell better to say)!

Fortunately I know that all Americans don't have such simplistic views on the world as you have. Saying that you are at war with terrorism is a nonsense platitude and trying to justify breaking fundamental international agreements with that excuse is just lame.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who else are we supposed to trust? The CIA is our intelligence agency, we have to be able to trust them, and we do. We've got no reason not to.

<span id='postcolor'>

Why don't you then trust your own police to judge if the people they catch are criminals or not? Sure would save a lot of money if we removed all the courts.

I think that it is very interesting how a large group of Americans (mostly Republicans) are paranoid on how the US government controls them (fighting for gun rights to protect themselves, protecting free speech, fair trials etc etc) while at the same time they accept anything the government does outside the us. Even more then that: it protects the governments actions in any way. You know what that is? Racism - nothing less.

[rocketjager 0]

The late terrorist was wanted for questioning after the USS cole was bombed in the territorial waters of yemen and he went into hiding shortly after. If you remember a couple of months ago a french oil tanker was attacked and once again he was suspected of masterminding it. Yemen has showed the US complete apathy in searching for him, so i guess they just got tired of getting ships blown up , and whacked him when they got the chance.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,06:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

I never thought I'd see the day a mod turns a thread into a flame war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why don't you then trust your own police to judge if the people they catch are criminals or not? Sure would save a lot of money if we removed all the courts.<span id='postcolor'>

Like I said, I agree with you. I think we should of brought him to trial. But they had an opportunity to take him out without risking lives and they took it. But I DO AGREE WITH YOU. We should of taken him in for a trial and prosecuted him under U.S. law.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that it is very interesting how a large group of Americans (mostly Republicans) are paranoid on how the US government controls them (fighting for gun rights to protect themselves, protecting free speech, fair trials etc etc) while at the same time they accept anything the government does outside the us. Even more then that: it protects the governments actions in any way. You know what that is? Racism - nothing less.<span id='postcolor'>

Racism!? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

And don't judge large groups of people with one sentence, it doesn't make you look good. It's almost racist in itself.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 06 2002,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Racism!?  How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

And don't judge large groups of people with one sentence, it doesn't make you look good.  It's almost racist in itself.<span id='postcolor'>

Criticising a political group is not racism. Racism is when you target an ethnic group or a collection of ethnic groups.

Saying that the government must follow strict rules when it comes to treating Americans but not when it comes to treating people of other nationalities is racist/fascist.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never thought I'd see the day a mod turns a thread into a flame war. <span id='postcolor'>

Disagreement is not flaming. Calling you a "moron" for instance would be flaming, but I'm not doing that, am I?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like I said, I agree with you. I think we should of brought him to trial. But they had an opportunity to take him out without risking lives and they took it. But I DO AGREE WITH YOU. We should of taken him in for a trial and prosecuted him under U.S. law.

<span id='postcolor'>

You say that you agree with me but yet you contradict it by saying "But they had an opportunity to take him out without risking lives and they took it."

Where is the proof that those were terrorists? It is the same 'ole "Shoot first, ask questions later".

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rocketjager @ Nov. 06 2002,01:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The late terrorist was wanted for questioning after the USS cole was bombed in the territorial waters of yemen and he went into hiding shortly after. If you remember a couple of months ago a french oil tanker  was attacked and once again he was suspected of masterminding it. Yemen has showed the US complete apathy in searching for him, so i guess they just got tired of getting ships blown up , and whacked him when they got the chance.<span id='postcolor'>

So it's justified then! Look at it this way: Someone in CIA and the american government together with Pinochet masterminded the coup in Chile. Allende and a hole lot of people were killed or simply disappeared. I would call that terror. Thus one could say that if some of those people (or folks like the monkey in Whitehouse calls terrorists) were on a holliday somewhere around the world - shouldn't someone whack those people?

- or should they be brought to trial and receive a fair treatment like you are supposed to in a democracy. How come you americans mean human rights are exclusive for US citizens?

Ever heard of Kant: treat others the way you wish to be treated by others.