Did U.S. Chop Up al Qaeda Boss With Terrifying Top Secret Spinning Blades?

How would that not be miles ahead of your sources ?

 

As I would have presumed you understood, and ever took to heart (as the only sound model, for deciphering truth from untruth), one cannot trust everything one reads. Is this report, from some unfamiliar source, in Egypt, less capable of either error or deception, than all others?

As it comes from 2001, and we subsequently had numerous videos of Bin Laden, released years after that, any truly wary traveller, through Newsland, must seriously consider the possibility that this report came from Taliban allies, or at least Bin Laden sympathizers-- who were legion, in the Mideast-- in the hope of fooling U.S. authorities, thereby taking "the heat" off of Osama.



But yes, practically all politicians lie. This is, no doubt, a product of its corollary, that practically all people lie. That does not mean that any of us dismisses everything we hear, from everyone.

This leads to my 2nd point. Though it may be technically correct, to label anyone who has lied, even once, a "liar"-- that is not the pragmatic way the word is used, in real life. The common practice is to reserve the word liar, for those who lie so assiduously, or with such abandon, that one must distrust anything from that person's mouth, even things that would be readily accepted from others, without need of further verification.

The importance of differentiating between those who have lied, and "liars," is the axiomatic reality that, those who have lied, do also tell the truth, honestly, most of the time. Once this balance becomes less lopsided, in favor of truth, for any individual, is when we typically brand them with this condemning "L" word.

Your solution of simply assuming that anything said by someone who, you are sure, has lied in the past, is also a lie, does not seem workable, to me, when these same people are running our government. What I would suggest, because of the power invested in government officials, would be that you regard them as you would any important information you receive, from anyone whom you don't well know, personally. That is, regardless of whether you believe the person to be sincere, you probably weigh all the circumstances surrounding the statement in question, examine its context, to determine the likelihood of its veracity.

This is why the Forth Estate, the news media, is so vital to us all, and to the functioning of our system; without it, we would have nothing to temper the human proclivity, among our leaders, toward dishonesty. As to having issues with any given news source, that could be measured in the same way, against all other news sources. But to believe that, essentially, all major sources of news are corrupt, puts you up a foul creek, without a paddle. You would be left, in that case, with no way to authenticate almost anything! Luckily, that all news sources would be in cahoots, to deliberately hide the truth & instead serve the interests of those in government power (who are, at least apparently, frequently changing), is too farfetched a notion, to pass the smell test, versus the body of information and evidence, to the contrary.

 

@Melb_muser

Most likely, they did use the “ginsu” hellfire munition. They used it successfully in Syria against an AQ leader last year.

 

Since there's zero possibility of war in Australia why don't you ask Ukrainians what they'd prefer..

 

There you go again!
Ruining a perfectly good conspiracy theory with those pesky "facts"!

 

Yeah it's kinda tough to prove one conspiracy theory with another which itself is factually disproven. It's like trying to pry open a steel door with a rotted twig.

 

I am not going to indulge your rambling screed, or whatever it became, after this most inauspicious beginning. Your opening statement, however, will suffice for me, in discrediting your argument. Anyone who reads my post, should see that it is obviously, whether or not one agrees with it, not a "pile... of nonsense," but a very logical, lucid, and (if I will be forgiven for saying so, myself) articulate argument, which I'd presented. That you should start off with none of my points, but only with trash talk, I think announces clearly, to any, even mildly, sophisticated reader, that you have nothing at your disposal, to meet my argument, but this defamatory, rhetorical cudgel. It is humorous, albeit sadly so, that this insulting attack on my post-- absent citations of any of my actual content-- should include your charge against me, of "name calling."

Very much in keeping with the subject of this side-debate-- whose word can be trusted?-- your past history is so replete with the "straw man" allegation, that it has, on its own, lost all relevance & meaning. If I had presented the type of argument you claim, I now expect-- as would anyone normally expect, anyway, from another debater, lodging this charge-- you to specify what it was. I suspect that I am not the only poster to have noticed that you are so partial to the sound of that accusation that, to all appearances, you offer it without relation to its applicability and so, quite often, devoid of all merit.


Though it is small compensation, I will credit you, at any rate-- whether or not it is deserved-- for comprehending that you had no legitimate, dialectical recourse, for countering my points, so not even wasting the time or thread-space, trying. Your post then, essentially follows the lawyerly advice of Carl Sandburg, in a situation when both the law, and the facts, are against you: "pound the table and yell like hell!"

 

If I can point out a flaw in your reasoning-- without implying that I am arguing against your ultimate supposition (that this person was actually taken out)-- which I hope to be something beneficial to you (if only to the slightest degree), your logic only works if one was arrested : 1) in certain parts of the world; and 2) for certain, more serious, offenses. Not even are all Americans forced to give DNA samples, when arrested for Drunk Driving, or Disorderly Conduct. I would guess, in fact, that it is only those sent to prison, who might lose the right to object to this requirement. And in places like Afghanistan, it is doubtful even that DNA samples are taken of convicted murderers, and rapists.

A third objection one might raise against your argument, would be that it is seriously unlikely that, during al-Zalahiri's long & successful career in terrorist organizations-- he was formerly the emir (head) of an Egyptian Jihadist group-- that the local authorities, from any of his various bases of operation, have dared arrest him, for anything. Nor does it seem likely that al-Zawahiri would have been a free man, at the time of the assassination, had Interpol or some such, convicted him of terrorism.

By way of apology, if my punctilious attention to logical inconsistency, has spurred any offense, I offer these two links. The first one is a Big Deal, in regards to this topic. ABC News is saying that Iran, of all countries, has arrested Al Qaeda's most likely successor to al-Zalahiri.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://abcnews.go.com/amp/WNT/story?id=129565&page=1&ved=2ahUKEwimvbaQiLP5AhWwl4kEHbHiDRUQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZT43nvGjjsKIAaS4rpGUZ



This next link is to a not overly long, scholarly but easily readable article, speculating on al Qaeda's next potential leader, and the ramifications of each eventuality. It looks at this through a lens of analysis, referencing data from terrorist organizations, in general. Hence, it is interesting, and supplies historical background information, about al-Zalahiri's leadership role, which it is doubtful any of us would already know. In the end, though, it speaks of possibilities, while offering no predictions.

https://icct.nl/publication/what-leadership-type-will-succeed-al-qaedas-al-zawahiri/



EDIT: The article does imply that the Al Qaeda leader was in poor health, and so that his death might have been imminent, even without the Ginsu's help

 

I was referring to our intelligence having his DNA. I wouldn't expect his country to provide that even if they had it.

See above.

He probably didn't start out at the top if his last name isn't Trump (and, it's not). So, he might have been untouchable for X years or decades but that may not necessarily be true as he gained higher leadership roles.

No apologies are needed. I am always willing to communicate with people that aren't hateful bigots and unwilling to stop being stupid.

I hope someone might find something helpful in your links.

I choose to not expose myself to television and media negativity. I've seen and experienced enough for more than one lifetime but I trust the international terrorists that devote their lives to spreading hate and terror are well on their way to spreading more.

Like domestic terrorists, that's the only objective and apparently way more than I feel comfortable with are more than willing to not accept but help the #1 Domestic Terrorist the country is facing right now.

 

I suppose so I guess. I am guilty of it too. When I see your user name the world "bulb" pops into my brain. Just don't call someone by anything other than their user name. Autocorrect got me a warning for that early on here.

 

Sounds sensible. And in answer to your question I think this new slice n dice technology minimizes casualties, particularly close family, so it's probably an improvement over good old explosive ordinances.

 

Even still, you can't beat the good old Beheading technique with a sword.

 

I guess. I am not sure what I think about it TBH because I fear that it will domesticated into law enforcement in the name of resolving hostage situations. I am not sure that it is that top secret though. I have heard of the technology before. Just not sure I have ever heard of it being used in the field before.

 

I'm going with turning him into minced meat...

 

Or how about boiling him in an acid bath? Imean can we not be more creative about killing ppl in a more painful way or are we just too woke. Satan rules huh huh.

 

Sick, sick ppl for real glamourising death. Y'all need to be ashamed.

 

I think it would be too expensive, frankly. And it's still technically a bomb.

 

While that is true, DNA testing was only first used to convict anyone in a U.S. court, in the late 1980s, and wasn't even accepted by most states' court systems, until the mid 90s. It has been controversial, the article, linked below, would assert, its entire time in use, but we can safely say this was true for more than a decade. Hence, it has been for no more than a couple of decades, if that, one could make the case that taking DNA samples has been commonplace, even among our own, relatively sophisticated, on the world scale, law enforcement.

https://law.jrank.org/pages/6228/DNA-Evidence-Legal-History-DNA-Evidence.html

In Egypt or Afghanistan, I'm sure it is quite another matter.

Ah, well that seems a more plausible contention, though I don't know that our CIA puts as much emphasis on obtaining this, as your assumption seems to suggest, is your belief. Forgive my indulging in making this one correction, however: you had not been referring to our intelligence services, having al-Zalahiri's DNA, since you made no specific reference to our intelligence resources; had you done so, I obviously would not have lodged all of my objections, against the reasonableness of this assumption. At best, you might claim that you had been alluding to intelligence agencies, when you had merely stated that "they probably have his DNA if he's been arrested previously." Even at that, though, as this DNA collection would not seem to be contingent upon, or even related to, any target's arrest, your post was actually misleading, if you'd intended it to be taken as a clear reference to our CIA or others in our international spy network.

Sorry for not resisting, being a ball-buster, on that point. I'm disappointed that you indicated you won't be checking out the links I'd included for you. I don't know how you see news of the capture of a top Al Qaeda leader as "negativity," nor even the informative/educational academic article, on al-Zalahiri's leadership role, and the hypothetical effects of the type of leader who may replace him (though it seems that will no longer be al-Abed, or something like that, who is now in an Iranian prison); but that is, of course, your own decision to make.

Wishing you happy thoughts.

DEF

 

Why are you avoiding your massive fail that I pointed out.. Flaw #1, in your "argument:" you do not specify what you mean, by your charges. That is, no American leader struck a deal and cut through all the red tape, involved, to directly arm Al Qaeda, -

Who said "Directly ARM" ? and what a goofy weazle term to begin with .. as if indirectly arming Al Qaeda doesn't count equal measure.

Thought Bush said we are not only going after the terrorists.. but the supporters of terrorism .. did something change .. such that arming and funding 911 terrorist group through indirect means .. would not be supporting terrorism.

Strawman fallacy and falsehood .. right off the get go.

Coalition of 40 nations armed, supplied supported "Al Qaeda and Spawn" - Mother El Saud and Sunni Afilliates Qatar - Turkey leading the charge. Israel - Jordan and the West backing up the phlank -- France and the Brits -- CIA and MI6 - all happy to join in the party.

Didn't get the memo D ? never heard of no war in Syria nor Yemen I suppose

What did you figure that "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" was all about ? if not "Arming Terrorists" a bill cosponsored by 13 Bipartisan in Congress... 2017 .. what were those folks referring to .. folks you desperately want to call crazy .. loony toons .. who would say such a thing .. as your necessary illusions are challenged.

Sup mate -- having trouble comprehending the fact that Obama and Smokin Joe were arming the bad guys .. using them 911 terrorists as our new proxy army

 

While I take it you are being facetious, and that I may regret not simply ignoring your post, I really don't believe that beheading is as barbaric a way of killing (given a skilled executioner), as seems to be the overwhelming, modern view. If I were to be executed, and was given a choice as to my method of dispatch (with "old age," and such, exempted from consideration), I would choose guillotine, over firing squad, hanging (which does essentially the same thing, but is not as error-proof, as guillotine), electric chair, poison gas, or lethal injection-- at least as it has incompetently been administered by our penal system. How about you? There are books, btw, giving directions to those with terminal illness, who wish to end their suffering-- why is it such a challenge for our prisons, to figure this out?

That all said, do not get the wrong idea that I am an advocate for the death penalty. I would be, in some cases, if our court system put a much greater emphasis on beyond a reasonable doubt, in death penalty cases; but those who study such things, estimate that about 3% of felony convictions, are of innocent people. I have even heard some officials consider that an impressively low number-- but not any who were unlucky enough to be counted among that 3%. In fact, we have people being released now, every month, after years or even decades in prison, due to the efforts of the Innocence Project, and others, dedicated to helping those, unjustly convicted. And when one hears about the flimsy evidence, upon which some have been sentenced to serious prison time, and even to death, it is enough to turn one's stomach. On top of this, is the clear, statistically proven racial bias in our system, as to who gets the death penalty. Combined with my impression, from the cases that have come to my attention, that it seems blacks are more likely to be convicted, on what should be insufficient evidence, I could not, in good conscience, condone it.

Though I know it is a non-starter, I do think I could suggest a solution, to assure that no one was falsely convicted, in cases involving capital punishment. The principals just need to have some skin in the game. If, whenever someone sentenced to death was later exonerated, regardless of whether or not the sentence had yet been imposed, the members of that jury that convicted him, the state's prosecuting attorney, and the presiding judge, should all have mandatory prison sentences (which could vary, among those 3 classes), long enough-- say 5 years of time actually served-- to insure that everyone was going to examine all the evidence with an appropriate degree of seriousness. I mean, how many are going to be willing to vote for the death penalty, when there is even the slightest possibility of error, when being mistaken would mean 5 years of hard time in prison, for oneself? Prosecutors would be less likely to ask for it, as juries would certainly be less likely to convict, not just when there might be room for reasonable doubt, but when there was any possibility whatsoever, they could be wrong. This, of course, is as it should be.

 

@MJ Davies

Correction-- though the link I'd described as saying that Iran had detained another Al Qaeda leader, had been supplied by Google out of context of my search question, & along with other recent news releases, it was still ultimately my error, to not carefully read it, before linking it and giving you even a basic description. Now that I have returned to look it over, I see that ABC News link about al-Abed, is dated 2003.

 

Lew is Alex Jones very small left Nut.

 

Exciting!

 

Rofl!!!!

 

Careful, or she will call the gazpacho Police on you!