Sponsors

Al Qaeda "#3" dead Email Print

By Georgia10
12/03/2005 08:50:34 AM EST

We got one!  Oh, boy, we got one! Bush's strategery is working!
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The operational commander of al-Qaida and possibly the No. 3 official in the terrorist organization, Hamza Rabia, was killed early Thursday morning by a CIA missile attack on a safehouse in Pakistan, officials told NBC News.

>Pakistan's president later confirmed the militant leader's death.

Two things to note about this. First, location. The "top al qaeda leader" was in Pakistan, not Iraq. Not Afghanistan, either. But Pakistan. Second, let's try and pin this guy down, shall we?

The government describes him as al Qaeda's #3.   Now, since al Qaeda's #2 has been killed more times than Goldie Hawn in Death Becomes Her, wouldn't that make this guy al Qaeda's #2? Or does the terrorist organization not do promotions?

But is he even #3?  Back in 2003, the "top operational leader" was reported to be Amjad Farooqi.  Abu Hamza Rabia was decribed as his "assistant."  When Farooqi was killed in 2004, he was replaced not by Rabia, but by Abu Faraj Farj.  Abu Faraj Farj, in turn, was captured by in May of 2005 . So, let's assume that, after being passed up twice for the job, Rabia finally became "al Qaeda's #3" in May.

His capture is sure good PR, but does it really make us safer? The job of "operational leader" has been filled by three people in two years. As each person is captured or killed, another terrorist picks up the spot. Has al Qaeda been crippled at all by the revolving door status of the #3 position? Let's look to our Dear Leader for answers.

Remember a couple months ago when Bush made a speech about the U.S. foiling 10 major Al Qaeda plots? Now, that number has been debunked, but let me play a wingnut for a second (a second of role-play is all my brain can take). Assuming Bush was right that 10 terrorist plots have been attempted, doesn't that argue against al Qaeda being rendered "ineffective" by the repeated capture/killing of its operational leader? Doesn't that mean that, no matter who's #3, al Qaeda can still launch (albeit unsuccessful) attacks that we have to use resources and money to defend against?

Whether he's #3 or #5 (and even the Pakistani government can't decide which one), the fact remains that capturing or killing "senior al Qaeda commanders" is just a temporary, if not an illusory, victory. Another terrorist will quickly rise up to replace whatever booby prize we have locked up in a cell.

Moreover, al Qaeda has evolved such that you could get rid of #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, over and over again, and the organization will still survive and be a threat. That's because al Qaeda isn't some company, with a neat hierachy on paper and lemmings which heed one "corporate policy". Al Qaeda has become a state of mind, a lifestyle choice that soulless demons follow. The fluid "hieracrchy" and "structure" of the organization merely formalizes what remains steady and unwaivering--a resolve, in the hearts of thousands across the globe--to destroy America's way of life.

So, #3, or #5, or whatever, has been killed.  I don't feel safer. Do  you?


KEYWORDS:

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

Related Articles

Disclaimer: "Related Articles" are provided as a service to our readers (Via Google News Feeds created using this article's 'Keywords' as the search terms to generate the feed). It is important to note that if a "Related Articles" list is included with this story, the list will be updated frequently subsequent to the posting of this story and may thus contain articles with information not yet known at the time of this story's original publication.

< Apologies to Canada | Explanation from Markos on DKos site problems >
 Display:
Al Qaeda "#3" dead | 5 comments (5 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
I've finally come to the conclusion ... (none / 1)
that the REAL problem is that Al Queda has a limited number set. They can't count beyond 3. So they have one #1, one #2 and 45,000 #3's.

Either that or my government's consistently lying to me about "progress" in breaking up terrorist groups. And of course, we know that can't be true.

by SusanG on 12/03/2005 09:59:26 AM EST

Revolving Door (none / 0)
Moreover, al Qaeda has evolved such that you could get rid of #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, over and over again, and the organization will still survive and be a threat. That's because al Qaeda isn't some company, with a neat hierachy on paper and lemmings which heed one "corporate policy".

This is the fundamental error in our government's approach to the "war on terror." Which has resulted in the fruitless "wack a mole" approach in Iraq.

BushCo has also fooled Americans into thinking there is no revolving door. That there is a finite number of terrorists and we just need to kill or capture them all and we win.

What a mess.

Dissent Protects Democracy

by cscs on 12/03/2005 10:27:33 AM EST

The growth curve (none / 0)
So long as we're knocking off a hundred thousand or so, each of whom has parents, kids, cousins, and friends, do we really think we'll make progress?

It's like trying to eradicate starfish by cutting them in half and pitching them into the sea.

by Devilstower on 12/03/2005 08:53:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (none / 0)
From the beginning, it was clear that (in addition to Afghanistan, it was Pakistan (Tribal areas were havens for fundamentalist extremism) and Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 911 terrorists were Saudi) that were the places we should have targeted our attention.

Iraq was pure BS from the start and everyone who had half a brain saw that clearly and immediately.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 12/03/2005 11:21:46 AM EST

Al Qaeda is starting to resemble The Prisoner (none / 0)
This "cult" 60 TV series featured a village retired spies that were given numbers.  Ptrick McGoohan played #6.
From wikipedia.com;

The following dialogue exchange runs over the opening titles of most episodes. The questioner is Number 6 and the respondent is Number 2, the Village chairman (a role occupied by a different man or woman in almost every episode, as the reference to the "new Number 2" indicates):

    Where am I?
    In The Village.
    What do you want?
    Information.
    Whose side are you on?
    That would be telling.
    We want information. Information. Information.
    You won't get it.
    By hook or by crook, we will.
    Who are you?
    The new Number 2.
    Who is Number 1?
    You are Number 6.
    I am not a number -- I am a free man!
    (Laughter from Number 2.)

In some cases, the voice of Number 2 in the above exchange is provided by the actor playing the character in that particular episode. However, in several episodes a different voice is used although the image of the actor playing the role is still shown. In a couple of instances, an image of the Rover is shown instead of No. 2 in order to maintain the element of surprise as to the true identity of the character (most notably in the episode "Many Happy Returns"). A couple of intros also differ in that No. 2 says simply "I am Number Two" - this was used on "A, B & C", which featured Colin Gordon as No. 2 [which was originally intended to be screened after "The General"] for the second time - therefore, he was not the new No. 2.

Politics is too important to be left to politicians.

by Shockwave on 12/03/2005 12:29:15 PM EST

Al Qaeda "#3" dead | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: