The capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed [Archive]

Rogue666666

03-02-2003, 09:04 AM

It's only one person?

That's like somebody saying " It's only one person" if they had caprtured Rommel in WW2.

This is a major succes. But, I find it suspiciuos that they capture him now, right at the twilight between war and peace in Iraq. It almost feels as if they were waiting for Bush to invade before they captured him. As if maybe though hope his capture prevents Iraq from bieng invaded. Though of course, they captured him in Pakistan, and it WAS a joint Pakistani-U.S force. So maybe I'm just blathering on.

Dengen-Goroth

03-02-2003, 06:52 PM

Quite a success indeed! Not to be nit-picky, but I believe he was the third most powerful man in Al-Qaeda. :)

Samweis

03-02-2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Rogue666666
It's only one person?

That's like somebody saying " It's only one person" if they had caprtured Rommel in WW2.

Do you know, who Rommel was?

A comparison between Khalid Shaik Mohammed with Rommel is absolutely inappropiate!

Parrot

03-03-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Samweis
Do you know, who Rommel was?

A comparison between Khalid Shaik Mohammed with Rommel is absolutely inappropiate!

Why? Rommel was probably Germany's most capable field commander, despite his political misgivings, so his capture would have been a major blow to the operational abilities of the Nazi machine. As the overseer of Atlantic Wall defenses he would also have been a well-spring of valuable information. These same points apply to Mohammed, the accused 9/11 mastermind and top-level Al Qaeda fund-raiser, do they not?

TheFool

03-03-2003, 04:45 PM

Don't count your chickens too early.

read this report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2808503.stm) - maybe it wasn't too well publicised in America ;)

So I'd give this 'al-Qaeda' guy another couple of weeks, just to make sure it's really him :rolleyes:

Samweis

03-03-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
Why? Rommel was probably Germany's most capable field commander, despite his political misgivings, so his capture would have been a major blow to the operational abilities of the Nazi machine. As the overseer of Atlantic Wall defenses he would also have been a well-spring of valuable information. These same points apply to Mohammed, the accused 9/11 mastermind and top-level Al Qaeda fund-raiser, do they not?

Yes, Rommel was a capable field commander, but he was involved in the attempt to kill Hitler on the 20th July 1944. His connection to the assassins were kept secret by the NSDAP. Three month later he was forced to commit suicide.

Parrot

03-03-2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Samweis
Yes, Rommel was a capable field commander, but he was involved in the attempt to kill Hitler on the 20th July 1944. His connection to the assassins were kept secret by the NSDAP. Three month later he was forced to commit suicide.
I know this. Perhaps a Goering or maybe Eichmann comparison would have been more more on target, but I don't feel that renders the Rommel comparison "absolutely inappropriate".

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 07:19 PM

Sure, they caught an al-Qaeda bloke, and that's great that someone like that is behind bars. However, there are far more al-Qaeda dudes out there, so I wouldn't get too cocky. Also, I would think twice before you say that this is definitely the guy. It could be a propaganda ploy, to help boost support for the war on 'terrorism'.

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 07:22 PM

And Eliot, you say that this man is a big threat to mankind. I think you meant a big threat to America.

Samweis

03-03-2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Parrot
I know this. Perhaps a Goering or maybe Eichmann comparison would have been more more on target, but I don't feel that renders the Rommel comparison "absolutely inappropriate".

I think it is "absolutely inappropriate", because Khalid Shaik Mohammed haven´t change his mind and tries to kill Bin Laden (if he is still living).

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 07:36 PM

I don't think any of those comparisons are appropriate. Are you telling me that you believe that Mohammed Shaikh Khalid is as bad as Adolf Eichmann, who sent over two and a half million Jews to the gas chambers in Auschwitz? You can't compare terrorists with genocidal maniacs.

Samweis

03-03-2003, 07:39 PM

Parrot

03-03-2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Samweis
I think it is "absolutely inappropriate", because Khalid Shaik Mohammed haven´t change his mind and tries to kill Bin Laden (if he is still living).
Fair enough; I would rephrase it as "largely inappropriate" maybe but it's a silly debate; I guess I don't deal in absolutes.

Morgoth, the U.S.A. might be the "Great Satan" but if you think there aren't lots of Mini-Satans on AQ's hit list you better go read up a little. The fact that you can read stuff like Tolkien and actually have access to a computer and the internet are good indications that your country is probably on that list.

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 07:52 PM

That's as well as maybe, but if the time comes where my country is under fire, I will understand that we are only reaping the seeds of our foreign policy.

Parrot

03-03-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
That's as well as maybe, but if the time comes where my country is under fire, I will understand that we are only reaping the seeds of our foreign policy.
So their hatred is justified? Is that what you're telling me?

These guys are not politicians, they are Holy Warriors bent on the destruction of infidels - if you don't share their religion you're in the cross-hairs; do you get that?

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 08:23 PM

You have a very stereotypical view of a terrorist. Most terrorists train as terrorists because they have been personally affected by the people who they are against. And as for not being in their religion is the reason for them to attack us would be directly defying the Qu'raan, which states that Jihad is justified when Islam is threatened, or if you have been wrong. Intolerance of others because of their religion is nowhere near the Qu'raan's message.

Parrot

03-03-2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
I don't think any of those comparisons are appropriate. Are you telling me that you believe that Mohammed Shaikh Khalid is as bad as Adolf Eichmann, who sent over two and a half million Jews to the gas chambers in Auschwitz? You can't compare terrorists with genocidal maniacs.

I can't? If AQ's leaders own words are to be believed, the only difference here is opportunity.

You have a very stereotypical view of a terrorist.
Yes, I do. Anyone who targets innocent non-combatants to forward their own political agenda deserves a bullet between the eyes; period.
Most terrorists train as terrorists because they have been personally affected by the people who they are against. And as for not being in their religion is the reason for them to attack us would be directly defying the Qu'raan, which states that Jihad is justified when Islam is threatened, or if you have been wrong. Intolerance of others because of their religion is nowhere near the Qu'raan's message.
Right, and most white supremacists are white supremacists because they have had bad experiences with other races and are therefore justified. I think I will start training to attack Canada because Thorin offended me the other day. :rolleyes:

Given your considerable knowledge of the Koran, please explain what, exactly, constitutes "when Islam is threatened" and who gets to make that call? I am sure it is not subject to manipulation by opportunistic demagogues.

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 08:46 PM

Ah, but white supremacists are racist, and are therefore a victim of their own beliefs. And that remark about you being offended by what Thorin said and training against Canada was very childish, and I expected something slightly better from somebody who very nearly had me over a barrel because of the point you made about white supremacists. Terrorism is not a laughing matter, even if it was said to try and prove a point.

Parrot

03-03-2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
Ah, but white supremacists are racist, and are therefore a victim of their own beliefs. And that remark about you being offended by what Thorin said and training against Canada was very childish, and I expected something slightly better from somebody who very nearly had me over a barrel because of the point you made about white supremacists. Terrorism is not a laughing matter, even if it was said to try and prove a point.
The :rolleyes: was intended to convey the ridiculousness of that statement - which was based on your logic. Sorry that point was lost on you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How are racial bigots any more "therefore a victim of their own beliefs" than religious zealots?

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 08:57 PM

I'm not 100% sure who decides when Islam is threatened but it pretty much constitutes any war with an Islamic people when the reason for war is unjust. War must only be conducted against an Islamic leader if they have broken the rules of the Qu'ran. Like if Saddam was a Muslim, then the reason for war would be just in one aspect (WOMD) , but unjust in another (OIL).

Parrot

03-03-2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
Like if Saddam was a Muslim, then the reason for war would be just in one aspect (WOMD) , but unjust in another (OIL).

Okay, now I see the light.

Morgoth

03-03-2003, 09:01 PM

Ah, but the religious zealots generally have a reason for war, one that doesn't involve the slavery of all non whites

Anamatar IV

03-03-2003, 09:46 PM

There seems to be some question as to me saying "it's only one person." It is "only one person." There will be another one to take his place just as soon as Bin Laden can dial a phone. The same exact reason as to why we can't just kill Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons, and let the next most powerful guy in Iraq be ruler. There will be others to do what Saddam is doing. His 2nd in command probably thinks just like him. There would be an endless line of this. There is an endless line of Al-Queda operatives. We've POSSIBLY caught one. Great. Bring the next guy up.

Parrot

03-03-2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
There seems to be some question as to me saying "it's only one person." It is "only one person." There will be another one to take his place just as soon as Bin Laden can dial a phone. The same exact reason as to why we can't just kill Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons, and let the next most powerful guy in Iraq be ruler. There will be others to do what Saddam is doing. His 2nd in command probably thinks just like him. There would be an endless line of this. There is an endless line of Al-Queda operatives. We've POSSIBLY caught one. Great. Bring the next guy up.
This guy is apparently one of their most capable logisticians and planners, hence his nickname "The Brain", so there may not be many capable of stepping in and taking his place at a moment's notice. However, the real importance of his capture may be what might gain in the way of invaluable intelligence, as opposed to what they might lose in the way of a capable leader. Heck, the cell phones and laptops may prove more valuable than he is.

Eliot

03-03-2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
And Eliot, you say that this man is a big threat to mankind. I think you meant a big threat to America.

WOW!! You actually spelled my name right for once Morgoth!! I'm so proud of you!! (the sarcasm is dripping off my lips)

Boy, you're weird. Why would there be Al Qaeda terrorist cells all over Europe if all they want to hit is America? They're against the western way of living, not just American's. By the way, where exactly do you live?

Parrot

03-04-2003, 06:04 PM

Here is a good article on "KSM" and his importance to the AQ network. This guy makes it sound like he's a bigger fish than Usama even.

State of Terror (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-geraghty030403.asp)

And here is a good question about his capture from Mickey Kaus of Slate;

Why did we find out about the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed almost immediately after the event? Wouldn't it have been better to keep the arrest secret while the U.S. and its allies rolled up those al Qaeda operatives whose whereabouts could be traced through Mohammeds' cell phone and computer, etc.? Why send out a worldwide alert, through CNN, to his co-conspirators, telling them it was time to scatter? Did the need for good publicity trump sound anti-terror techniques?... 11:11 A.M. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2079177/)

Is the P.R. War on Terror more important than the War on Terror?:confused:

p.s. Is anybody actually looking at these links I keep posting or am I wasting my time? Just curious......

Morgoth

03-04-2003, 06:50 PM

Why do you feel obliged to know where I live? Does it really matter? And also, about the terrorist cells in Europe, I have made my position clear on what I believe just a few posts ago. And weird, please, that coming from a person who had George W. Bush- Forever My Hero on his signature. You need to find some less megalomaniacal role models.

Eliot

03-04-2003, 10:52 PM

So what if I support GW Bush? At least I don't have Morgoth in my signature. Any person that can actually use logic, would prefer Bush over Morgoth. So, which is stupider for a sig? Bush or Morgoth?

I got this from dictionary.com. Megalomania:

1. "A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence."

2. "An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions."

That may be like Bush, but any smart person would know you can't change somebodys (especially mine) opinion just like that.

If I found out where you live, that could clear up some issues. You might not be, but I'm guessing that you're European. I wouldn't be surprised (no offense intended).

Dain Ironfoot

03-05-2003, 01:35 AM

All of these people are complaining about the logic, or the "under the table" gain that we might have from our "megalomaniacal" president's war on Terror. If in fact you do live in Europe, and you believe that the war is unjust, why dont you ask some of the thousands of familys from sep. 11? You people say that the Terrorists have a resone for fighting becuase are their strong passion in the "holy- war", what emotions would you feel if thousands of civilains were killed in your country?

Ps: There are many different view of the Qu'ran. Someone interpited the Qu'ran to read "70 crystal clear raisins"..... oh well!

Samweis

03-05-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Dain Ironfoot
All of these people are complaining about the logic, or the "under the table" gain that we might have from our "megalomaniacal" president's war on Terror. If in fact you do live in Europe, and you believe that the war is unjust, why dont you ask some of the thousands of familys from sep. 11? You people say that the Terrorists have a resone for fighting becuase are their strong passion in the "holy- war", what emotions would you feel if thousands of civilains were killed in your country?

Ps: There are many different view of the Qu'ran. Someone interpited the Qu'ran to read "70 crystal clear raisins"..... oh well!

I´m living in Europe - one of my cousins died in the south tower of the WTC.

I can´t understand neither a "holy-war" nor a "war on terror". I criticise both!

The holy-war is proclaimed by "megalomaniacal" religious immans. The war on terror is proclaimed by an elected president of a democracy. The immans don´t need to take responsibility for it. Mr. Bush is responsible for his politics - If he wants support for his politics, he has to persuade people and politicians of other countries. He has to answer questions. If he doesn´t do it properly - there will be problems.

This seems to be a disadvantage of a democracy, but this is also the "force" of a democracy. If we would change this in a democracy, the terrorists would "win".

Morgoth

03-05-2003, 06:26 PM

Look, by no means do I advocate terrorism, but I do try and look beyond the reasoning of it. I agree that if something like September 11th happened in my country, I would be angry. But could also understand why they did it. What you have to do is look past everyone else's opinions, and make your own decisions. By the way, I do live in Europe. :D

Parrot

03-05-2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
But could also understand why they did it.

Please explain "why they did it". I would really like to know. (FYI - blanket generalities like "American arrogance" won't cut it when rationalizing the deaths of thousands of innocents- specifics please).

You may want to read this before framing your answer;
Excusing Terror - The Politics of Ideological Apology (http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/18/walzer-m.html)

Morgoth

03-05-2003, 07:38 PM

I cant explain the reasoning behind each individual terrorist's reasoning, as trying to find biographies for these people is difficult due to all the American right-wing propaganda clogging up the Google search. You also say American arrogance is a term that I would use. Why? I don't live in America, so why should I blame your country if it was my country that had been attacked?
I do however, blame how we have treated the Middle East since the break up of the Turkish empire after WWI. How we (Britain) treated Iraq after WWI was despicable and we have never been tried for the warcrimes that happened there. Also, my country may be attacked for supporting yours, but I'm not going to have that as a main reason because I said I wouldn't. I don't blame American arrogance, I blame Western Capitalist arrogance.

Húrin Thalion

03-09-2003, 12:08 AM

The immans don´t need to take responsibility for it.

Firstly they are called Imams, secondly most imams have no responsibility at all in this mess. Read up on islamic history.

Secondly I agree with Morgoth.

Thirdly poor Khalid Sheik Mohammed, I hope they kill him soon. Before the torture breaks him that his. Evil Americans.

Samweis

03-09-2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Húrin Thalion
Firstly they are called Imams, secondly most imams have no responsibility at all in this mess. Read up on islamic history.

Sorry,

I had to say the imams, who are accessing "holy war".

Ciryaher

03-09-2003, 08:25 AM

Thirdly poor Khalid Sheik Mohammed, I hope they kill him soon. Before the torture breaks him that his. Evil Americans.

The Pakistanians are torturing him, actually. Not the US.

Eliot

03-10-2003, 03:47 AM

Ooooooh. Good point Ciryaher, very good point. :D

"Evil Americans" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek: :confused:

Húrin Thalion

03-10-2003, 03:59 PM

Do you know where he si right now? According to some sources he has been moved to Bagram (sp.?) airport outside Kabul. He could be anywhere.

Húrin Thalion

Parrot

03-10-2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Húrin Thalion

Thirdly poor Khalid Sheik Mohammed, I hope they kill him soon. Before the torture breaks him that his. Evil Americans.
Ask yourself this (if you are able to actually answer a question without appalling bias that is); Who would you rather have in control of the world's most dangerous military arsenal - the "Evil Americans" or someone of KSM's ilk? If Al Qaeda had access to our kind of power, the world would be reminded what real evil looks like. Let's keep our comparisons in perspective here.

Húrin Thalion

03-11-2003, 05:28 PM

Well... I don't feel safe when the U.S. posesses nuclear weapons at least, they are the only ones that have been irresponsible enough to use them. I would not like Al-qaida to have dangerous weapons either but it would be good if you Americans stopped giving weapons to terrorists and people like Saddam for your own gain. You have been the sources of 9/11, it could never have happened without your support to Koran schools in the area. That Taliban were okay until 9/11, then you had to bomb the nation asunder.

Húrin Thalion

Parrot

03-11-2003, 06:46 PM

I don't wish to validate that post with a response beyond this - 9/11 happened because some fanatical madmen chose to crash some airplanes into buildings full of innocents - deciding that their need to air their grievances was more valid than those people's right to life. People who try to justify those actions and or deflect blame to other than those directly responsible make we want to puke.

The Law of Unintended Consequences always applies in these complex situations - had things been done differently you might well be b!tching about our inactions. Unfortunately, there is no control group by which to gauge our actions, just self-serving hind sight.

I only wish things were as black and white in the real world as they are in your little world. What color is the sky there anyway?

Húrin Thalion

03-11-2003, 07:47 PM

Blue, for your information.

I don't see things black and white but I can't help noticing that the Taliban and al Qaida wouldn't have gotten far without US money and weapons. Unapplied consequences, yea right, but I would like the leaders of the worlds' mightiest nation to have SOME capability to see further than the next day. Maybe he could even care to reduce pollution by resigning the Kyoto protocol. Or is the nect generations not important enough to care about? I see many colours and US support was only one of the factors that made that happen, it can be traced back to the crusades and even longer back.

Húrin Thalion

Gandalf White

03-13-2003, 04:10 AM

Maybe he could even care to reduce pollution by resigning the Kyoto protocol. I am sorry, but I see absolutely no reason to do this. Kyoto is run by a bunch of hypocrites who do nothing to live by their set laws. They seek to place excessive bans on America, yet only have light ones on China, which is the country that creates the most pollution. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Morgoth

03-13-2003, 03:33 PM

They seek to place excessive bans on America, yet only have light ones on China, which is the country that creates the most pollution.
That's because China is inhabited by 1.2 Billion people. And if you ever visit Xi'an in China, you would feel happy that your country is nowhere near that. The smog there reduces field of visibility to about 150m, and the sun is only a sillouhette in the sky.

Parrot

03-13-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Morgoth
That's because China is inhabited by 1.2 Billion people. And if you ever visit Xi'an in China, you would feel happy that your country is nowhere near that. The smog there reduces field of visibility to about 150m, and the sun is only a sillouhette in the sky.
And this is an argument for lower limits on China? Your logic continues to confound, Morgoth. And again the US has no right to tell anyone else what to do, but we should bow to everyone else's wishes? The Kyoto agreement was full of contrived deadlines with little consideration for subsequent economic fallout - we rejected it as being too costly, which is our right, right?