Yet another Al Qaeda number two killed..

jonny72

Another month, another number two killed, complete with pic of a smiling guy who looked too nice and human so we had to find one where he looked more identifiable as a terrorist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7220823.stm

So many number twos killed/arrested, so many more arrests day after day, I dunno which is growing faster, Al Qaeda or all the bull**** we have to listen to.

Morlar

What that said was ;

'A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, Western counter-terrorism officials have told the BBC. '

Are you saying he wasnt killed ? Or that he wasnt a senior leader in afghanistan ?

Considering the scope of that organisation (and including other islamist terrorist organisations) its not surprising to hear on an ongoing basis of progress being made in dealing with them across so many fronts.

Its in the nature of the media generally to play up the importance and newsworthiness of a story especially on a slow news day - this is not something unique to coverage of islamist terrorism.

Akrasia

jonny72 wrote: »

Another month, another number two killed, complete with pic of a smiling guy who looked too nice and human so we had to find one where he looked more identifiable as a terrorist.

Isn't every photo of an Arab with a turban and a beard 'identifiable' as a terrorist?

Akrasia

Morlar wrote: »

What that said was ;

'A senior al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, Western counter-terrorism officials have told the BBC. '

Are you saying he wasnt killed ? Or that he wasnt a senior leader in afghanistan ?

Considering the scope of that organisation (and including other islamist terrorist organisations) its not surprising to hear on an ongoing basis of progress being made in dealing with them across so many fronts.

Its in the nature of the media generally to play up the importance and newsworthiness of a story especially on a slow news day - this is not something unique to coverage of islamist terrorism.

Really? Compare the BBC reports of Abu Laith al-Libi's death with the reports of Suharto's death.

Suharto was portrayed (spun) as an epic figure who was a great (economic) leader who happened to be a ruthless dictator (and in the story, the first half of the story and the headline was always devoted to his strengths, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7211565.stm

Father of development?

with his genocidal past relegated to the bottom half of the page and qualified as though he was tough but only in order to promote a noble agenda.) Never once in any of the BBC reports (that I have seen) were the words 'East Timor' or 'Genocide' ever mentioned.

Honestly, read that BBC article. It's a complete and utter disgrace. Less than 10% of the piece was devoted to his murder campaign (he is responsible for more than a half a million deaths, and a vicious attempt to wipe out the indigenous population of east timor in order to steal their natural resources., and absolutely never is the role of the U.S. Australia and the U.K. highlighted in this crime of Nazi proportions.

Manic Moran

Are you saying he wasnt killed ? Or that he wasnt a senior leader in afghanistan ?

More of a cynical comment that the US always seems to get the second-or-third in command, but never getting the top dog. In this case, a number three, not a number two. The difference seems to be that in this case, they've gotten an Al-Q senior, as opposed to "The Number 2 AQ in Baghdad" or whoever.

NTM

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote: »

the US always seems to get the second-or-third in command, but never getting the top dog. In this case, a number three, not a number two.

I would be pretty sure when they get the 'top dog' there will be dancing in the streets/parades etc 24x7 media coverage followed by a flareup of idiot islamists blowing themselves up left and right. Until that happens though whats the actual problem here ?

Of course the americans/british will target al qaida leadership - and while they continue to miss the most visible target they will continue to aim at leadership people - perfectly normal in my book.

I am not seeing whats unusual here either about their targetting programme -or about the fact that they (americans) are making it publicly known for morale/propaganda or informative purposes - (though in this case it appears to have been leaked initially on an islamist site).

Akrasia wrote: »

Compare the BBC reports of Abu Laith al-Libi's death with the reports of Suharto's death.

Do you think the bbc coverage of suharto's death was any more objectionable than how it was handled by any other mainstream media sources ? Is your issue here with the bbc in particular or the mainstream media in general ?

I would not honestly expect them to handle those 2 deaths in the same way.

A former leader of indonesia vs a al qaida terrorist ? I am aware of the similarities between the two but there were also substantial diffferences - which (to me at least) would explain the fundamental difference in how they covered both events. I would not be surprised if the beeb had formal guidelines for handling obituaries of former nation leaders. Regardless of whether they do or not - I dont see anything surprising in how those 2 deaths were covered by the bbc or by the mainstream media.

Akrasia

Morlar wrote: »

Do you think the bbc coverage of suharto's death was any more objectionable than how it was handled by any other mainstream media sources ? Is your issue here with the bbc in particular or the mainstream media in general ?

Nope, the OP linked to a BBC article, so I compared like with like.

I would not honestly expect them to handle those 2 deaths in the same way.

A former leader of indonesia vs a al qaida terrorist ?

A taliban leader, a former leader of afghanistan? It's pretty irrelevant. The main point I was making, was that the BBC minimised the immense crimes of Suharto (unquestionably, one of the worst monsters of the 20th century) while bleating piously about the death of a mostly irrelevant afghani man. The BBC found space to report on the 'positive' aspects of Suharto's life, but not one single positive thing was mentioned about Abu Laith al-Libi's death.
(he was probably involved in the fight against the soviet union for instance. if he had been killed in the 1980's his death might have been reported as the death of a heroic freedom fighter)

I am aware of the similarities between the two but there were also substantial diffferences - which (to me at least) would explain the fundamental difference in how they covered both events. I would not be surprised if the beeb had formal guidelines for handling obituaries of former nation leaders. Regardless of whether they do or not - I dont see anything surprising in how those 2 deaths were covered by the bbc or by the mainstream media.

Where were the fauning obituaries of Saddam Hussein, a former nation leader, a man who kept order and provided a pretty decent and advanced standard of living for most of his citizens? Pretty much all of the good things the BBC said about suharto could have been said about Saddam, but of course, the dominant discourse was that he was an evil man who deserved to die.

My point is that propaganda is alive and well in western media. The fact that you are unsurprised by the coverage means you are aware of it on at least some levels.

jonny72

Yeah but personally I just think its rubbish propaganda. Doesn't matter how big the busts are in the war on drugs, it just continues, growing, getting worse, never being solved. This is exactly the same bull****, keep the masses happy, keep spewing the crap we're killing all these 'number two's'. Couple of weeks time another guy we've never heard of before will be killed or captured. Rinse, repeat.

I would like to think Al Qaeda is magically organised into a rank and file 'defeatable' army whereby the death or capture of a highly ranked member 'affects' the rest of the organisation, but it isn't. Its a result of hatred and bad foreign policy, they can pop all the number 2's they want, its still not gonna stop some random nutjob from Brixton hopping on a plane tomorrow and trying to blow it up.

Morlar

Akrasia wrote: »

Nope, the OP linked to a BBC article, so I compared like with like.

Ok so your issue is the media in general in relation to how they covered the suharto death vs how they covered the death of an al qaida terrorist.

Akrasia wrote: »

A taliban leader, a former leader of afghanistan? It's pretty irrelevant.

There is no comparison in stature between the two - there is therefore no reason for any kind of parity between their respective coverage.

Akrasia wrote: »

The main point I was making, was that the BBC minimised the immense crimes of Suharto

They absolutely did - likewise with pinochet and more than likely many other former leaders as and when they die. Churchill through bomber harris burned hundreds of thousands of (non military-engaged) german civilians alive that was not in either his or bomber harris's obit (without checking I am pretty sure it wasnt). When the english queen dies its unlikely you will hear about her pinning medals on the bloody sunday paras either. Former leaders obituaries arent typically incisive and hard hitting. A dead terrorist on the other hand can expect no leniency from the mainstream media.

Akrasia wrote: »

(unquestionably, one of the worst monsters of the 20th century)

Thats going to be some list - he would not be near the top of it but definitely on it.

Akrasia wrote: »

while bleating piously

I must have missed that part.

Akrasia wrote: »

about the death of a mostly irrelevant afghani man.

If the report is correct and he was indeed still a senior member in the worlds foremost terrorist organisation - in one of the most problematic countries for the west (regarding islamist fundamentalism) I would not call him 'an irrelevant man' - not in the context of the war on terror.

Akrasia wrote: »

The BBC found space to report on the 'positive' aspects of Suharto's life, but not one single positive thing was mentioned about Abu Laith al-Libi's death.

Not being facetious but I thought his death was the positive part. No one could realistically expect the beeb to dig up nice things to say about dead al qaida terrorists.

Akrasia wrote: »

(he was probably involved in the fight against the soviet union for instance. if he had been killed in the 1980's his death might have been reported as the death of a heroic freedom fighter)

More than lilkely it would have given the global political climate of the time. Not so much if he had bought it in chechnya though or beslan or moscow. Or Kosovo for that matter.

Akrasia wrote: »

Where were the fauning obituaries of Saddam Hussein, a former nation leader, a man who kept order and provided a pretty decent and advanced standard of living for most of his citizens?

You could check arab media - considering the uk were balls deep in iraq at the time its not surprising that sadamms obit was less positive in the context of a war crimes execution. Having said that I dont recall the coverage being of the 'humanskin lamp' type nuremberg variety either.

Akrasia wrote: »

Pretty much all of the good things the BBC said about suharto could have been said about Saddam,

I am not actually disagreeing with you there but 'spilled milk' and all that.

Akrasia wrote: »

My point is that propaganda is alive and well in western media. The fact that you are unsurprised by the coverage means you are aware of it on at least some levels.

Media analysis is an interesting subject generally - definitely worth studying if you have the time.

I think there is an important difference between not being surprised by something and not being aware of it.

Any account of any event is flawed - no one person sees everything - the way people process information is different too. The way information is reported by the bbc is on balance as good as it gets.

lostexpectation

he was killed in afghanistan was he?

better have or musharaff would be mad,

killed by a drone missile someone must have sold him out, why use a drone over a plane?

Nuttzz

lostexpectation wrote: »

why use a drone over a plane?

it can fly lower and slower and hang about longer than a plane also a lot cheaper to lose than a plane

Sesshoumaru

OOH-RAH! +1 for Western civilisation! Thanks Jonny for bringing this news to my attention

RedPlanet

It's the same thing the yanks have been doing for years.
Look at Vietnam, sure they'd kill a load of civilians then report they got a VC Commander :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

Since the western media's portrayal of Suharto was mentioned, i thought i'd post this link from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2749
It references favorable coverage given to Suharto even tho his crimes exceed that of Saddam.

lostexpectation

/ cos he was good with econmics they said, wasn't hitler good for the german economy too?