Taliban Leader 'Likely Killed' In Drone Strike

[Gomez163]

Source: Sky News

Afghan Taliban leader Akhtar Mansour is likely to have been killed in a drone strike, a US official has said.

Read more: http://news.sky.com/story/1700072/taliban-leader-likely-killed-in-drone-strike

[Doctor_J]

1. That's like the 1311th one since W's Great Adventure started. Doesn't seem to be helping

much. Can't believe anyone swallows this bullshit any more.

[Gomez163]

2. No. He replaced Mullah Omar. Its the No. 1

[askeptic]

26. What's the definition of crazy? Doing the same thing and expecting different results

One minute it's all "cells", the next it is centrally controlled.

Isn't that the theory implied here? Cut off the head and the beast will die! Yea, maybe in the movies. They've been fighting in Afghanistan a long time - they have other leadership ready to step in, just like we do.

Then there's the IS which will build a caliphate that rules the entirety of ancient Persia.

We have to take a different approach.

[Doctor_J]

27. This was rightly ridiculed when Stupid was president. Now it's great!!! And anyone who disagrees

is a racist!

[Thor_MN]

38. If you read a headline about a Catholic church leader, do you assume it's the Pope?

Anyone who isn't the lowest on the totem pole is a "leader" of some sort.

[TeddyR]

3. Good

These are the assholes who think it is ok to throw acid in the faces of young women because those women want to obtain an education. The Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda and their ilk are the enemies of any progressive person, and I don't use the term "enemy" lightly.

[askeptic]

4. "Likely Killed". or maybe it was someone else, not really sure

we do know that our drone killed someone, and appreciate your endorsement of these tactics... (after all, our intelligence that got us into the war was just excellent in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and so I'm sure it is now absolutely flawless, and that no innocents are killed - not anymore anyway)

[TeddyR]

5. I didn't endorse killing "someone else"

I endorsed killing the leaders of groups who think that it is ok to throw acid on little girls because they want an education. Do you support those groups? And yeah, I do endorse the use of drones, as does President Obama. Do you think President Obama is wrong in this regard?

[askeptic]

12. You can't know and they admit they don't either. Trial? Law? Guilt? who cares?

He was in a Jeep and had a beard. Looks guilty to me! Obama agrees so all is well. You better hope the tables are never turned.

You seem to endorse group rather than individual responsibility. Did all of them throw acid? Endorsing is not doing. A good number of white folks used to endorse African American lynchings, but we still only went after the doers. And I know it is just silly of me, but would sure like to some evidence of guilt before assassinations ensue.

I agree that religious extremism is not good. So is this the way we fix it? Doesn't seem to be working.

Looks like an excuse for perpetual war and sending all of our money to the military-industrial complex. I'm sure our drone war is winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, right?

[TeddyR]

14. Pretty sure we don't have many trials in war

And this isn't "perpetual war" or the "military-industrial complex." Those are buzz words that mean nothing. The Taliban are quite literally the enemies of the US, women, progressives, the LGBT, etc., etc. There's not a single reason to support them. War sucks, and the death of innocents is horrible, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't drone the fuck out of the Taliban leaders. Do you think we just pull out and let them do whatever they want?

[askeptic]

17. oh really? 1.5 Trillion seems like a lot of MI complex to me

And 685 Billion for just Afghanistan. Add in the idiocy of Iraq for the other 814Billion. Who do you think is getting most of this money? The Afghani's? Hardly. We spend more on the military than the next 20 countries combined. You might want to study what President Eisenhower was talking about when he warned America about the military-industrial complex, since it is just a buzzword to you.

Afghanistan is now the longest war in US history -- looking pretty perpetual to me. We should leave. Civil wars need to be allowed to go until the people of the country come to an agreement.

If we're going to be there, I imagine what the possibilities might be if the people of Afghanistan saw us investing that money in the betterment of their lives, rather than just being an occupying force and blowing people and things to bits. Maybe the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or whatever wouldn't get so many followers

[TeddyR]

46. You continue to ignore my questions

Is it ok for a government like the Taliban/Al Qaeda to (1) fly airplanes full of innocent civilians into the World Trade Center and (2) throw acid in the faces of girls who want an education? Alternatively, should we drone the leaders of the governments that think it is ok to do those things? n case you forgot, the US didn't create a reason to invade Afghanistan.

[ronnie624]

33. +1. n/t

[askeptic]

40. The Assasination Complex

is a book, so I guess I'm not the only one who sees the ramifications:

What it really comes down to is the reality that we have a political class that feels it must inoculate itself against allegations of weakness. Our politicians are more fearful of the politics of terrorism – of the charge that they do not take terrorism seriously – than they are of the crime itself.

As a result, we have arrived at this unmatched capability, unrestrained by policy. We have become reliant upon what was intended to be the limitation of last resort: the courts. Judges, realising that their decisions are suddenly charged with much greater political importance and impact than was originally intended, have gone to great lengths in the post-9/11 period to avoid reviewing the laws or the operations of the executive in the national security context and setting restrictive precedents that, even if entirely proper, would impose limits on government for decades or more. That means the most powerful institution that humanity has ever witnessed has also become the least restrained. Yet that same institution was never designed to operate in such a manner, having instead been explicitly founded on the principle of checks and balances. Our founding impulse was to say: “Though we are mighty, we are voluntarily restrained.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/03/edward-snowden-assassination-complex-governments-tagged-animals-drone-warfare-whistleblower

[TeddyR]

6. Your comment about Afghanistan puzzles me

You agree that the Afghani government protected Al Qaeda, including bin Laden, and that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, correct? And the US was completely justified in attacking Afghanistan because of the 9/11 attacks?

[Gomez163]

7. Bernie voted for the Afghanistan war too

[askeptic]

13. I don't have to agree with everything Bernie ever did to support him

Last edited Sat May 21, 2016, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

apparently you do? Does that mean that you agree 100% with Hillary?

and when it comes to warmongering, I feel that Bernie is a lot less inclined.

[Gomez163]

18. You won't have to much longer. HEE HEE.

[askeptic]

21. Isn't Hillary dissing enough Bernie supporters by herself?

If you really want Hillary to win, you are going to need us -- this is not the way

[Doctor_J]

28. Does this post have something to do with the op?

[Gomez163]

29. No. It was responsive to a response.

[Doctor_J]

30. Post 8, to which your post was a response, contained no mention of Sanders or Clinton.

So you're lying

[Gomez163]

34. That was not the response it was responsive to.

[askeptic]

10. actually, I remember us arming those guys against the Russians, but why quibble

Be puzzled no longer! My view is almost entirely in agreement with this one. I am not a chicken hawk. I have participated in war, so I don't take it lightly. the bolding is mine

I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in Afghanistan?

Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter. Measured by this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.

Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:

“[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.”2

In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War.” The point of the title was that, although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal, the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that many Americans did not realize it, was equally illegal.3 Her argument was based on the following facts:

First, according to international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal.

Second, there are two exceptions: One is that, if your nation has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. This condition was not fulfilled by the 9/11 attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation: Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Indeed, the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans.

The other exception occurs when one nation has certain knowledge that an armed attack by another nation is imminent – too imminent to bring the matter to the Security Council. The need for self-defense must be, in the generally accepted phrase, “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Although the US government claimed that its military operations in Afghanistan were justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this need, even if real, was clearly not urgent, as shown by the fact that the Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost a month later.

US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: “The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks,” so US troops went to Afghanistan “nder the banner of . . . international legitimacy.”4

However, the language of “all necessary steps” is from UN Security Council Resolution 1368, in which the Council, taking note of its own “responsibilities under the Charter,” expressed its own readiness “to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.”5

Of course, the UN Security Council might have determined that one of these necessary steps was to authorize an attack on Afghanistan by the United States. But it did not. Resolution 1373, the only other Security Council resolution about this issue, laid out various responses, but these included matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the support of terrorists, exchanging police information 
about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.6

The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false.

This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-9-11-justify-the-war-in-afghanistan/19891

[TeddyR]

11. You ignored my question

Do you support terrorist groups like the Taliban who think it is ok to throw acid on girls who want an education, or is it ok to kill those assholes?

And are you really claiming that the US was not justified in attacking Afghanistan when it harbored the terrorists responsible for killing thousands of individuals in 9/11? Simple question - was the US attack on Afghanistan following 9/11 justified? Yes or no?

[askeptic]

15. Did Afghanistan attack the United States? yes or no!

Read my post - I said I agree with it. What does it say? Do I think the attack on Afghanistan was justified based on my post? yes or no! simple question.

Shouldn't we be invading Saudi Arabia now that we KNOW who participated?

[yurbud]

20. We would have been far more justified attacking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[askeptic]

23. Except that extra-territorial terrorism is rarely state-sponsored

so attacking an entire country actually accomplishes very little. I think we've become complete tools in the ME, but that's a whole essay on its own.

But you are right in that it is seeming that there was a small cadre of people within the Saudi gov't/monarchy that planned and executed 9-11, along with Bin Laden. Bin Laden was a Saudi until he was banished. Who knows how much of what the truth is will ever come out.

[yurbud]

25. the Saudi govt IS a small care of people. Prince Bandar is pretty closely tied to this

Which hardly makes it a rogue operation.

[askeptic]

32. You could be right. Who knows? All those redactions make the report hard to read...

...and it would be pretty embarrassing if it showed Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan knowing that the Saudi's did the deed...

[EX500rider]

39. Global Research is that last place I'd look to support any argument.

Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk -- and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.
While some of GlobalResearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist -- if something goes wrong, the Jews West didit! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with "Western" sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the "mainstream" media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

[askeptic]

41. I didn't see any Jewish conspiracy arguments

In what was posted. It would have been better from my perspective if you had challenged particulars of the content of their (and my) argument, even just on a single point. Do these UN resolutions make the war illegal? Otherwise you just have an ad hominem. Thanks.

[EX500rider]

43. Defensive war

The war was defensive in nature, planned in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda under the protection of the Taliban. The Taliban then refused a ultimatum to hand over the guilty parties making them a accessory to the attack. The US attack on them was therefore defensive in nature, just as the attacks on Japan were.

[politicaljunkie41910]

22. I'm familiar with the program and I endorse the tactics and trust the program and the people behind

It more than I trust anonymous critics of the program who post on a message board.

[askeptic]

24. The Irony of your post gave me a real good laugh! Thanks!

So you are here, posting anonymously... why?

[patsimp]

8. agreed

[Chan790]

9. Good. Him and Omar can enjoy Hell together. n/t

[bluestateguy]

16. We'll wait for the facts to come out

That said, Mullah Whoever-he-is, is a savage asshole who deserves to be incinerated.

[yurbud]

19. Why are we killing these guys when Saudi & Pakistani gov'ts did more to back 9/11 hijackers?

[ManiacJoe]

31. We can use political tactics on people with nation governments.

[yurbud]

44. 1) we are not really doing that with Saudi 2) Afghanistan had a government

Afghanistan's role was mostly like being the landlord of a hitman while Saudi's was (and is) more like being a mob boss.

Does it make sense to kill the landlord, his family, and his other tenants and meanwhile only give the mob boss a stern talking to behind closed doors (if at all)?

[ManiacJoe]

45. I am open to all options.

[MowCowWhoHow III]

35. Assuming they ID'd the right vehicle I'm going to assume he's dead

This may have the unintended consequence of boosting the local ISIS franchises.

[nitpicker]

36. Link to BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36351990

Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour has probably been killed in a US air strike, US officials say. A drone targeted his vehicle in a remote area of Pakistan near the Afghan border, the officials said, adding that results were still being assessed. US Secretary of State John Kerry said Mansour has posed "a continuing, imminent threat to US personnel". Mansour assumed the leadership in July 2015, replacing Taliban founder and spiritual head Mullah Mohammad Omar.

The operation took place near the town of Ahmad Wal in Balochistan, south-west Pakistan, at around 15:00 (10:00 GMT) on Saturday and was authorised by President Barack Obama. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan were informed about the strike shortly after it took place, the White House said.
(snip)

Mr Kerry, on a visit to Myanmar, said: "This action sends a clear message to the world that we will continue to stand with our Afghan partners as they work to build a more stable, united, secure and prosperous Afghanistan. Peace is what we want. Mansour was a threat to that effort."
(snip)

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour killed, Afghans confirm

Afghanistan's spy agency has confirmed that Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour has been killed, after the US targeted him in a drone strike.
...
The Afghan National Security Directorate (NDS) said on Sunday that Mansour had been killed in the Dalbandi area of Balochistan province - the first official confirmation of the killing of the Taliban leader.
...
There have been conflicting reports from the Taliban.

Senior commander Mullah Abdul Rauf told Associated Press that Mansour had been killed, but that the strike happened late on Friday.

Other reports denied his death. One unnamed Taliban commander told Reuters: "We heard about these baseless reports, but this not first time. Just wanted to share with you my own information that Mullah Mansour has not been killed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36352559

[MowCowWhoHow III]

42. Pakistan denounces US drone strike believed to have killed Afghan Taliban chief

#BREAKING Pakistan denounces US drone strike believed to have killed Afghan Taliban chief
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/734403199977848832

[Gomez163]

47. For public consumption. Privately they have to be happy to see this pest gone.