US thinks No. 3 al-Qaida official dead

[jingofever]

Link. Al-Qaeda goes through Number Threes like The Village went through Number Twos. It must be like being a 'vice-president' in a corporation.

U.S. officials believe al-Qaida's No. 3, Sheikh Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, is dead, killed by a U.S. Predator drone strike in Pakistan's tribal areas within the past two weeks.

Al-Yazid is also known as Sheik Said and Abu Saeed al-Masri.

A U.S. official tells The Associated Press that word of the al-Qaida operative's death is spreading in extremist circles, and that U.S. officials have "strong reason" to believe it's true. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the operations.

Al-Yazid was the group's prime conduit to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, and he was key to day-to-day control, with a hand in everything from finances to operational planning.

He has been killed before. And it's funny that they believe he was killed within the past two weeks but are leaking the information now.

And by the way, does the AP always use English-Prime in its headlines?

[operator kos]

Stephanie O'Sullivan is dead?

[Nordic]

This "story" just knocked the Israeli raid on the flotilla story off the front page of Yahoo news.

Coincidence? Yeah right.

TERROR TERROR TERROR. War on terror! We're winning! We're blowing people up with their families! Brutality is needed to WIN WIN WIN.

[stefano]

This "story" just knocked the Israeli raid on the flotilla story off the front page of Yahoo news.

Coincidence? Yeah right.

TERROR TERROR TERROR. War on terror! We're winning! We're blowing people up with their families! Brutality is needed to WIN WIN WIN.

Anything from SITEis bullshit.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Gee, just this week the UN asked the US to stop the CIA run drone operations. So now all of sudden we have a big success story. See we got one of the bad guys finally. Doesn't matter if wiped out a few wedding parties in the process.

[stefano]

I just emailed the BBC's ME editor about this vibe, not really expecting a response but you never know.
_______________

Dear Mr. Bowen,

I'm writing to take issue with the article entitled Senior al-Qaeda leader 'killed' in Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle ... 200712.stm), as I think the story was deliberately released to divert attention from the drama surrounding Israel's storming of the Mavi Marmara, and it stands reported by the BBC I see no reason to change my mind.

The first problematic aspect of the article is the quoting of a "US official, speaking on condition of anonymity". Such a quote is worse than worthless, as was amply shown by the run-up to the Iraq war when anonymous officials of this sort fed a daily dose of propaganda to news outlets and it was dutifully reported, skewing the public's perceptions of the threat supposedly posed by Iraq in a way that favoured the jingoes.

The biggest problem, though, is the source of the intelligence that purports to come from Islamists. The second paragraph says "Islamist websites said, quoting a statement from al-Qaeda". Only by reading further do we learn that this information actually comes from "US monitoring groups". One of these groups is mentioned by name: the SITE group. But your readers are not told that SITE is run by an Israeli-American with long ties to both countries' intelligence bodies, nor are we given the names of any other "monitoring groups". Was the other source IntelCenter, by any chance? You should be aware that that organisation is unreliable for precisely the same reason.

[Nordic]

I just emailed the BBC's ME editor about this vibe, not really expecting a response but you never know.
_______________

Dear Mr. Bowen,

I'm writing to take issue with the article entitled Senior al-Qaeda leader 'killed' in Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle ... 200712.stm), as I think the story was deliberately released to divert attention from the drama surrounding Israel's storming of the Mavi Marmara, and it stands reported by the BBC I see no reason to change my mind.

The first problematic aspect of the article is the quoting of a "US official, speaking on condition of anonymity". Such a quote is worse than worthless, as was amply shown by the run-up to the Iraq war when anonymous officials of this sort fed a daily dose of propaganda to news outlets and it was dutifully reported, skewing the public's perceptions of the threat supposedly posed by Iraq in a way that favoured the jingoes.

The biggest problem, though, is the source of the intelligence that purports to come from Islamists. The second paragraph says "Islamist websites said, quoting a statement from al-Qaeda". Only by reading further do we learn that this information actually comes from "US monitoring groups". One of these groups is mentioned by name: the SITE group. But your readers are not told that SITE is run by an Israeli-American with long ties to both countries' intelligence bodies, nor are we given the names of any other "monitoring groups". Was the other source IntelCenter, by any chance? You should be aware that that organisation is unreliable for precisely the same reason.

Nice! But why do I have a feeling the recipient of that e-mail has no idea what you're talking about?

They're just stenographers, after all. They get the release, they pass it along.

[stefano]

Al-Qaeda goes through Number Threes like The Village went through Number Twos. It must be like being a 'vice-president' in a corporation.

Here's a satirical piece from 2005 about that:

Some jobs just seem impossible to keep filled. Hollywood studio head. United States ambassador to Iraq. Editor of the New York Daily News. Defense Against the Dark Arts professor at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

To these we must now add "al-Qaida's No. 3 official." John Crimmings, proprietor of the New York-based Blogenlust, has been keeping track of al-Qaida third-in-commands captured or killed by our side, and counts no fewer than four.
[...]
No matter what the explanation, it's clear that the sweet spot in al-Qaida management is No. 1 and No. 2. After that, job security seems only slightly better than that enjoyed by suicide bombers. My advice: Go with Procter & Gamble instead.

Nice! But why do I have a feeling the recipient of that e-mail has no idea what you're talking about?

They're just stenographers, after all. They get the release, they pass it along.

Jeremy Bowen actually does know his stuff, and gets attacked by Zionist groups every now and again for insufficient pro-Israel bias in his reporting, so I thought he might read it and have a word with the website's sub-ed or whoever.

[Gouda]

* delete dupe *

[Gouda]

Great letter, Stefano.

And do recall that a few days before this 'announcement', on Friday to be precise, UN HRs chief Philip Alston once again raised the issue of the legality of drone murders:

UN Expert Urges US To Rethink Use Of Lethal Drones

Fri May 28 - The use of drones by U.S. intelligence agencies to target suspected militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere lacks the accountability required under international law, a U.N. human rights expert said Friday.

Philip Alston, a New York University law professor, will call next week for new international rules to govern the use of drones to ensure they are deployed in line with the laws of war.

And according to the NYT, was expected to call for a cessation of drone use (at least by intelligence agencies):

U.N. Official to Ask U.S. to End C.I.A. Drone Strikes

A senior United Nations official is expected to call on the United States next week to stop Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes against people suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda, complicating the Obama administration’s growing reliance on that tactic in Pakistan.

(...) he would deliver a report on June 3 to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva declaring that the “life and death power” of drones should be entrusted to regular armed forces, not intelligence agencies.

Then, poof, #3 gone. June 3rd UN human rights thingy pre-empted.

GWOT Media steps in to help:

...a Nightline poll asks, "Is this further evidence [Gouda's emphasis added] that we should increase the use of drones in the war on al Qaeda's leadership? Even at the cost of significant collateral damage?"

Washington Post:

Although many of the network's members have been incorrectly reported dead in the past by U.S. and Pakistani officials, al-Qaeda's official announcements regarding the "martyrdom" of its senior leaders have been highly reliable.