Al Qaeda Leader Al-Zawahiri killed by US Drone Strike

No doubt he had his doing terrorism laptop set up, manipulating world events. Actually he was probably doing the Bin Laden thing, jacking off to VHS porn and enjoying pirated movies.

 

Talking about training camps, etc. I doubt he was by himself. By all accounts, he was a guest of the Haqqanis (sp?). You could impute their infrastructure to AQ. But again the issue is striking at Western targets outside the region. That is why we went there in 2001, and why then VP Biden argued to withdraw in 2009 and maintain an"over the horizon" force to engage in selective strikes. In terms of AQ as it existed in 2001, that is done.

 

The War on Terror however, that lasts forever

 

How do you determine revenge vs justice? Clearly the two are not mutually exclusive

 

Incendiary bombs.

 

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia


The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲, Tōkyōdaikūshū)was a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Force during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) of central Tokyo were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1] The atomic bombing of Nagasaki by comparison, resulted in the deaths of between 39,000 and 80,000 people.

 

In a perfect world this type of activity wouldn't have to take place. These people are not interested in yours, or my, definition of moral justice, or whatever you want to call it. If they had the chance, they would wipe us off the face of the earth. You can't reason with people like that, or try and take the moral high ground. They don't understand any of that. I will agree that there are things our leaders have done in the past that don't seem to line up with what we state as our values. As I said, we are not perfect by any stretch. But it's difficult to play by the rules when your adversary doesn't. If this guy was part of the planning that resulted in flying planes into buildings, what other kind of deadly activity do you think he would be in favor of? Tell me, what are we, since we are the enemy to them, supposed to do to keep them in check?

 

My right wing sources say this was a false flag to distract you from inflation. Oh boy.

 

That's a good question. What is justice for 9/11? Who is the justice for? The people that committed the act are all dead, so in my view justice would be making the victims, first responders and their families whole, rebuilding. Killing people on a list we say "planned" it? Starting a 20 year war? Really hard to see that as anything other than revenge or pretexts to assert your will abroad. Are we going to call an end to the "War on Terror" now that the people responsible for 9/11 are all dead? If not, what was the point of all of this? To build a permanent police state?

 

And it appears neither are we. And given the chance, we wiped them off the face of the earth. We operate under the same logic it seems. Your justifications are the same as theirs, so I don't think you or our country understand any of that either.

 

Did you read the Spencer Ackerman piece? He was shocked at Biden's use of the term, and he's not wrong

 

I linked it here, yeah

 

Sorry, missed that. I did too, but I wasn't aware you had. He really makes me reconsider my priors. Hasn't changed me yet, but I still read him, and he gives me pause

 

Its crazy, remember when we said we have to 'fight them over there,' now its completely flipped, not being at war makes it easier to drone strike 'em, vindicating withdrawal. The logic of the WoT is nothing if not adaptable.

 

I could put out a long Contra argument, but I don't want to hijack the thread. But it's not an easy issue, to be sure. Soundbites and sloganeering are really out of place.

I hold two contradictory thoughts in tension. US and Western might is generally a force for good, a source of security for many nations who don't want to be dominated by far more vicious hegemons.

On the other hand, if you take a long enough view, you can make an argument that almost every actual projection of force not clearly in self-defense will eventually blowback and prove to be counterproductive of all the ideals I seek to uphold

 

There are some smart (and plenty of not so smart) people in those countries that think the same thing, only we are the more vicious hegemons in their imagination

 

I traditionally took that fact at face value but not as sure based upon the book I'm reading now at least.

Others will know a lot more than I do about the history, but the discussion seems to have been about unconditional surrender versus a surrender with some conditions. There were cables being intercepted reflecting that Japan knew it was going to lose the war and many in the Japanese government were working to save face and clarify/negotiate the terms via the Soviets (there were also some hard liners, but I think even the Emperor was open to a surrender).

On top of that, the U.S. had successfully conducted the Trinity Test after delaying the Potsdam conference to do the test, and the U.S. was becoming more and more concerned about Stalin, who had his own interests in taking credit for Japan's surrender, was spying on our nuclear progress, and had his own goals with respect to Manchuria. The U.S., England and China issued the Potsdam Declaration promising complete and utter destruction of Japan but post-surrender terms were intentionally vague, and we decided not to warn of our having atomic bomb capability. We also dropped leaflets in Japan but the Japanese citizens apparently didn't read them because they may have been accused of being spies and were forbidden from doing so. It seems the truth of the situation was also kept from them. Not saying that would have mattered though.

Ultimately, the war would have drug on some, but I didn't realize before this book (if it's accurate) just how bad of a position Japan was in by August 1945. I also think it's fascinating how much of our pre WWII conflict with Japan was over its treatment of China and how things may have played out through today if we hadn't completely neutered Japan back then. It's all academic at this point, but I think it's an interesting ethical discussion and a closer call than I previously thought. I'm certainly glad it wasn't my call to make.

 

What book are you reading? I'm familiar that line of argument, but I ended up feeling pretty confident in our decision.

I've read a few different books that touched on the end of the Pacific campaign but this is the one that really made me feel comfortable with the decision

The Fleet at Flood Tide by James D. Hornfischer: 9780345548726 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

Edited to add:
I am reading this book now but I haven't gotten to the point where it talks about the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb, and of course it may not, since it is written from the British perspective

The Forgotten Fleet: The Story of the British Pacific Fleet, 1944-45 by John Winton

One other last point, pure anecdata. My late beloved father-in-law was a radioman on the New Jersey by the end of the war. He talked about how nervous everyone was sitting in Tokyo Harbor with all the 5 inch guns on tee shore, waiting for the USS Missouri to get there for the surrender papers to be signed, Missouri being President Truman's home. He was a big fan of the decision by talking about how hard it would've been to invade

 

The book I'm reading (rather, listening to) is Hiroshima Nagasaki by Paul Ham. It seems to have gotten good reviews but I can't vouch for its historical accuracy because I'm not a WWII buff. I don't think the author (yet at least) is offering his opinion about whether the U.S. was justified or not. That's just one issue I'm naturally thinking about in my mind going along.

Edit: I just looked up the book I'm listening to and apparently he is going to argue against the use of the bomb. Perhaps his factual outline and soon-to-come opinion is influencing my take a bit, so I will consider that moving forward.