Every time one gets killed another one has to take his place. The Al-Queda "#2" position is the equivalent of the Star Trek red shirt. Nobody wants to job because they know they'll die within a week so it goes to some random guy who nobody even bothers learning his name since he won't be around long anyway.
Seriously? If al Qaeda has n members, then the theoretical maximum number of "Number Twos" left is n-1, with each new Number Two simply being the most immediate inferior of the deceased Number Two. The total number of "Number Twos" is understandably harder to determine.
(the real question, of course, is why isn't the Number Two actually called Number One?)
On the contrary, this is the guy I remember being named as the #2 all along.
Silly, they're ALL #2s! They're shits, right?
Does anyone know of a site that has tabulated media references to the various dead/captured #2 Al Qaeda lieutenants, thus arriving at a grand total of Numbers Two? I seem to recall seeing something like that once.
How many Number Twos does this organisation have, anyway?
Well, they eat a lot of bran over there.
Here's an article a quick search turned up on the topic. It only names one other besides Zawahiri, Mohammed Atef (killed in 2001), who had been mentioned as an al-Qaeda number 2 (not including one who was said, apparently falsely, only to be a top deputy to Zarqawi in Iraq). There certainly have been a lot of top deputies, though.
On the other hand, this one quotes a counterterrorism expert-blogger as saying "If I had a nickel for every No. 2 and No. 3 they've arrested or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd be a millionaire," so that in fact the actual number would seem to be no less than 20,000,000!!!
I remember seeing an article this last year that tabulated all the news references to Al Quaida number 2 man (or top man) killed or captured ... and it was quite a list. I don't remember where I saw it though.
But, it would be big news if Zarqawi was dead. Too early to tell if it would significantly affect the insurgency, he was only one player there.
I have a suspicion, though, that they may have put out this "big win story" to reduce the news impact of blowing up women and kids. It seems like they have a tendency to do that.
You are NUMBER SIX!
The Prisoner had fourteen Number Two's!
Number 6: Who are you?
Number 2: The new Number 2.
Number 6: Who is Number 1?
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man!
Yes, children, The Underpants Monster is a nerd.
so that in fact the actual number would seem to be no less than 20,000,000!!!
Never argue with this man.
All that matters is wheter " number two " ( or number one, or number eleven, or number three hundred and ninty seven ) was any GOOD at what he was doing.
{ They're ALL ' number two ' and there IS NO ' number one }
You just have to keep " taking out " their smart / compentent ' nubmer twos ' until all they're left with are stooge-number twos. Then you're getting someplace.
Well, they eat a lot of bran over there.
Funniest Terrorist comment EVAR!
The US just launched missiles into a country that it is not at war with and -- as far as I know -- without their permission. It is not the first time in the past four years that this has happened. Yet no one talks about it or is concerned about it.
Imagine if there was some terrorist group training in Wyoming somewhere and China or Russia launched a fucking missile into the US to take them out. Still not a problem?
WHO... DOES.. NUMBER TWO... WORK.. FOR?!
Ah, yes. Bernockle, you're forgetting the new Bush slogan:
Creating new terrorists, one missile at a time.
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Radio Dada Announcer : Coming into the final turn, coriolisdave -- Monkey #6 -- pulld ahead by a nose!...
In a shocking display of oiir hoesemanship!
Brought to ye by a Wet, Soapy, Ever-Noble Horse.
Monkey #2 -- the new #2....
This is a coup!
/checks coup-coup clock
'Cos, you know, michaelh is also my husband and also known as #2 and...well, if I have to explain it, it obviously wasn't funny to begin with.
I knew that. I knew that. I was just pretending, y'know, for the others, like . . like Koko and some of the special monkeys.
I hate myself for the cliched comment I'm about to make but:
launching a missle into a village that kills 15 people, including women and children? Not really the best way to win the old "hearts and minds."
(it is worth noting that Clinton did his own missle launching at Afhghanistan and the famous Sudanese "pharmaceutical factory")
Well, it's quite obvious: AlQaeda has cloning capabilities. So far, only have been succesfull on reproducing old, cranky, careless leaders that get killled easy, but wait until they perfect the cloning of an able soldier! They'll win the War on Tierra Terrah!
launching a missle into a village that kills 15 people, including women and children? Not really the best way to win the old "hearts and minds".
The first step in winning hearts and minds is obviously removing them from chests and skulls.
A bit more detail on the recent strike here (Washington Post): seems the strike was cleared with the Pakistani government beforehand, though some officials express reservations.
quid wins.
The BBC has a different angle on things: according to them, the Pakistani government is outraged and has protested officially.
Personally (just guessing) I think both stories are true: that Musharraf and a few officials were probably in on the CIA's plans; that the outrage is genuine in some quarters of the Pakistani government, and provides good cover for anyone who was in on it.
"We're going to bomb a terrorist target in a border village of yours, OK? Also, have some more aid money and possibly an arms shipment."
"Fine, they're only Afghans. But we'll be lodging an official protest afterwards. And the arms shipment had better include..."
[the rest is just haggling]
There's no number two. It's an ideology, not an organisation. Every single Al-Qaeda attributed attack since 9/11 has had no connection with Bin Laden whatsoever, apart from an (arguably selective and vague) agreement with his aims. The Al-Qaeda guys hiding in villages in the North West Frontier are no more running terrorist operations as the Pope is running church jumble sales: they're figureheads.
And the problem is, as figureheads it makes no difference if they're alive or dead. Dead, they could be even more powerful symbols. Alive and captured would be even worse.
Yeah, Pallas: I was watching the news last night and did a double-take when the reporter said the strike was on the Afghan border of Pakistan. I mentioned it to #2 (my #2, that is) and he said Pakistan had actually told the US where to strike. I haven't checked the links to back that up, though.
Here's the relevant bit from the Post article, quoting an anonymous US military source:
"This would not have happened without Pakistani involvement," the source said, adding that Pakistanis were "heavily involved." He said the attack was planned and executed by a combination of CIA officers in Pakistan and Pakistani officials.
In other news, Bush still unconcerned about Bin Laden's whereabouts, WMDs still possibly under chairs in the Whitehouse.
Danger has it right. There is something deeply. deeply wrong with the US military if it thinks that it was even worth the risk of a murderous fuck-up of these proportions (which an airstrike by its nature will always carry) to assassinate one man whose death by itself would only have a minimum impact on Al-Qaeda as an ideology.
The only way I can think this makes any strategic sense is if the plan really is after all to look and act like a bunch of cavalier cowards with expensive hardware and no regard for human life, so as to recruit another few hundred angry young men to the Islamist cause and keep the War on Terror rolling on forever.
US government launches terrorist attack on Pakistan, 18 civilians murdered.
When do we get to declare the US a rogue state?
But, you know, maybe!
Monkeyfilter: a bunch of cavalier cowards with expensive hardware and no regard for human life
I do agree, Abiezer-- unfortunately, to the US top brass, it is worth the risk and those 18 civilians are just collateral damage. After all, they need to be seen to be doing something to justify said expensive hardware. And it's not like it's a risk to themselves.
/bitter enough to dissolve pearls
Could someone tell me how this is not murder?
At the risk of oversimplification? Because we have a big army and a shitload of political clout (partly because of said army) and our official position is that we say it's not.
There is something deeply. deeply wrong with the US military if it thinks that it was even worth the risk of a murderous fuck-up of these proportions (which an airstrike by its nature will always carry) to assassinate one man whose death by itself would only have a minimum impact on Al-Qaeda as an ideology.
I don't think anybody in military intelligence thinks that strike accomplished a damn thing, practically or tactically speaking. This was a politically motivated strike, pure and simple. When you're as isolated and under fire as the current administration is, you need tangible, specific victories, no matter how symbolic, for that whole "hearts and minds" issue back home. Popular support for the war is evaporating, now Iran's on the front burner, and they're trying to get the flag-waving campaign going again. So 18 people died essentially for a favorable poll shift.
US government launches terrorist attack on Pakistan, 18 civilians murdered.
When do we get to declare the US a rogue state?You would not be alone in that assessment. But pretty much all of you, or at least every last nation on the UN Security Council including our dearest allies, will have to band together to get that done.
Unless and until the Democrats can actually find a way to make this work to their advantage and take back Congress (and, God willing, the White House) in the next round or two of elections, this is probably going to keep going for awhile -- and it may anyway, even if the Dems do take over. All depends on who's steering the ship. But I'm not holding my breath.
Pretty much every horrible prediction Plato made about the future of democracy is alive and well in Washington DC right now. And sometimes it makes me want to cry, just thinking about it. Honest-to-God leaders have by and large been replaced by actors in an expensive but hollow and tawdry theater. And these meretricious motherfuckers have the temerity to claim that they're on the side of right and freedom. That they care. Maybe one in five actually does, who knows. But my fellow citizens are too complacent and too tired of hearing the screaming in DC to really pay attention anymore, and it's going to take something big to rouse them to action. You'd think any single year in the last four would have been enough.
The Democrats need to call for impeachment. I've avoided saying it for a long time, but I really don't see a better option. The administration -- not just Bush, on whom we've done a good job of drawing horns and a curly moustache -- needs to be called out on the carpet now. So does Congress, for that matter.
I want to go to sleep.
Could someone tell me how this is not murder?
See comments here for a discussion of that pesky fourth commandment.
so THAT'S how they keep getting this "Number Two" guy... by never actually getting him! ungenius! we're still at war w/ east asia!
TierraTerrah!