Al Qaeda Offers Gold Bounty for U.S. Ambassador to Yemen

[alecgraham]

This is what Americans and Jews get for working their asses off to help make Arab countries a better place.
(Not that they should give up. They shouldn't).

An audio produced by the group's media arm, the al-Malahem Foundation, and posted on militant websites Saturday said it offered three kilograms of gold worth $160,000 for killing the ambassador, Gerald Feierstein.

...
and US $23,000 for killing an American soldier in Yemen.

The bounties were set to "inspire and encourage our Muslim nation for jihad," the statement said.

Yemen: Al-Qaida Offers Bounty for US Ambassador - ABC News

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Doesn't America have bounties on the heads of several criminals and wanted persons around the world?

How is this any differnt?

If you say this is bad, then surely America is bad also - or is it one rule for the whitey's and another for the arabs?

 

[nahadef]

Is it really a jihad if you only do it for the money?

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Don't look at it like that - "doing it for the money"

Think of it that they pay for your expenses.

If you are going to successfully target someone with as many layers of security as the US ambassador to Yemen. Then you are gonna need a serious amount of people and equipment, not to mention time and money.

So make sure that guy selling you the RPG gives you a receipt

 

[alecgraham]

Doesn't America have bounties on the heads of several criminals and wanted persons around the world?

How is this any differnt?

If you say this is bad, then surely America is bad also - or is it one rule for the whitey's and another for the arabs?

If you equate American ambassadors with criminals, I'm not sure I'm capable of explaining how it's different.

@ def: a very good question. Maybe they can rationalize it by making it a suicide mission, with the gold riyals going to surviving family members.

 

[nahadef]

Don't look at it like that - "doing it for the money"

Think of it that they pay for your expenses.

If you are going to successfully target someone with as many layers of security as the US ambassador to Yemen. Then you are gonna need a serious amount of people and equipment, not to mention time and money.

So make sure that guy selling you the RPG gives you a receipt

Sorry, but when God is supposedly on your side, money should be no object. Al-Qaeda has always been a political entity over a religious one, and stuff like this emphasizes the fact.

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------

@ def: a very good question. Maybe they can rationalize it by making it a suicide mission, with the gold riyals going to surviving family members.

You can rationalize it, but half the meaning of the Middle Eastern religions is that God is more important than family, allowing you to disown them when they break from the faith. So, truly, accepting money for a holy mission sullies its purity.

Not that I think there's purity in what they do, just in what they hypocritically claim.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

In the eye's of many that is exactly what the US ambassador is viewed as.

Not to mention that your enemies senior diplomat, in a region you are both fighting to control, who took the job understanding the risks, is nigh on the definition of a legitimate target.

I don't see how you can say it's ok for the US to put a multi-million dollar bounty on the head of bin laden, but at the same time say it's not OK for your enemies to do it.

You care enough about it to write on a forum, but do you care enough to write to your "elected" representative to ask if you could perhaps stop dicking around in the middle east so much.

Remember - As Commander in chief of US armed forced, Obama and Bush bear ultimate responsibility for more civilian deaths than all acts of terrorism. Also not many women and children were killed in 9/11...pity you can't say the same about afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan borders, Korea, Vietnam etc. etc.

don't worry kids! the GOOD guys are here, to save you from the bad people with differing political views to us!!!



say what you like about al-qaida - i've never heard about the time they set fire to hundreds of kids on purpose, Razed entire villages full of innocent people to the ground, etc.

Infact you don't here much about these bad terrorists knowingly killing children, yet this is part of western military doctrine. We even call it "collateral damage" so that it doesn't sound so bad.

so yea - I agree.

I'm not sure you are capable of explaining how the US has the moral high ground when bounty's are concerned

 

[alecgraham]

I would never say the U.S. is blameless, though I'm not sure how posting shocking photos from a war that ended in the 1970s bolsters your point. Why don't you just post drawings of white settlers slaughtering the Iroquois while you're at it? Of course I've seen this before. When a holocaust survivor gave a lecture to some high school students in Germany, one of the students in the documentary said, "(The Nazis) didn't do anything worse than the Americans in Vietnam", and with that shrugged it off. I guess two wrongs make a right for her, even though the lecturer was from Europe.


I can see Bush and Cheney being legitimate targets. Call it "regime change" like they do.

But diplomats? The government of Yemen wants those diplomats there. They certainly don't want Al Qaeda in Yemeni towns, like Shaqra. I make a distinction between death caused by the U.S. military and people devoted to nation-building: Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, J. Christopher Stevens (who famously died in Benghazi recently) come to mind.

If you can forgive AQ for 9/11 because it was mostly adults who were murdered, even though they were financial analysts and fireman and other noncombatants, at least consider that AQ destroys schools in Yemen and prevents girls from getting an education. But whatever, maybe that's also your cup of tea since you seem to be sympathetic with terrorists.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

You say terrorist - Others would call them freedom fighters.

I wonder what emperor Palpatine (of star wars fame) would call Luke and his Jedi pals - terrorists perhaps?

I'm not talking about forgiving anyone.
But you can't complain about your enemies wishing to kick you out of their region, when at the same time you are flying drones over Pakistan and dropping laser guided bombs on a family minding their own business.

Also whats with the (americans and jews have done nothing but try to help the middel east) - whut?

we have done nothing but ensure that governments friendly to us are in power, we err on the side of the corrupt and prefer people who can be bribed and bought, who will work against their own people for personal advancement. Anyone who actually tries to siphon more than a pittance of oil money towards their people is branded a commie and we all know what happened to gadaffi

 

[alecgraham]

You say terrorist - Others would call them freedom fighters

Others would be wrong. Maybe you missed the previous post about them not letting women go to school, or even leave home. Does that sound like freedom to you?

Also whats with the (americans and jews have done nothing but try to help the middel east) - whut?

You inserted "nothing but"; I did not. Those are your words, not mine.

Nothing wrong with wanting to kick the West out one's country. Something wrong with murdering ambassadors, though. In the end, your own country will suffer.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you come from Turkey, a nation responsible for the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of Armenians. But, you can move to the UK, where you will not be murdered for being Turkish or Muslim. Again, I'm speaking hypothetically. I don't know where you're from.
But, I do know that Americans and Brits cannot easily pick up and move to Turkey, Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc without the fear of being kidnapped, tortured, killed, or some combination of those. Including ambassadors. And that's sad.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Others would be wrong.

No others would simply have a different point of view.

Would you call those that fought in the american war of Independence terrorists?

I'm sure as far as the ruling British state was concerned these people were terrorists.

One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist - just depends if they are on your side or not.

If they are not, then their actions are desperate, barbaric, and based on ignorance.
If they are, then their actions are brave, Direct, and based on understanding.

2 people in afghanistan each kill 20 armed men.
one is called a hero and given honours.
the other is called a terrorist.

which is the American soldier?
which is the taliban?

answer, both. depending on who you ask

 

[nahadef]

No others would simply have a different point of view.
Would you call those that fought in the american war of Independence terrorists?
I'm sure as far as the ruling British state was concerned these people were terrorists.
One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist - just depends if they are on your side or not.
If they are not, then their actions are desperate, barbaric, and based on ignorance.
If they are, then their actions are brave, Direct, and based on understanding.
2 people in afghanistan each kill 20 armed men.
one is called a hero and given honours.
the other is called a terrorist.
which is the American soldier?
which is the taliban?
answer, both. depending on who you ask

Looks like you cherry picked that quote in order to ignore the bigger point being made. Would you like to come on record as thinking Al-Qaeda are freedom fighters? If so, come out and do so.

 

[alecgraham]

Yes, yes, I get it. The blurry line between terrorists and freedom fighters. It's not a new concept for me.
What you don't want to acknowledge is that the revolutionaries of the British colonies went on to build a state that people from all over the world flock to. Why? Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly. The right to a trial. Colorado marijuana by way of British Columbia. Spiderman. And so on.

I'm all for the Arabs who are disappointed by Americans' siding with dictators like Mubarak for our own selfish purposes, but the Taliban or Al Qaeda is not the answer (Nor is the Muslim Brotherhood). It'd be like curing a tumor with a gunshot wound. But again, if you think girls should be stuck indoors without access to education or any kind of a fun life simply because they were born female, maybe the Taliban is for you.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Actually the Taliban officially support female schools these days - The media doesn't like to report it, but both the Americans AND the Taliban have come to the realization that no one is going to win the war and so for some time now negotiations and talks have been happening. This has had the net effect on the Taliban that more moderate members have managed to gain more power and traction within the movemnt, something that before was the reserve of the hardcore hardliners.

in the next 10 years you will probably see the Taliban fielding a semi-sucessful candidate in elections.

ha so now your freedom fighters have become revolutionaries - I suppose it would be a bit odd to call people who kept slaves freedom fighters eh
Also you would be suprised how many of those freedoms you actually don't have - certainly not a single one that you mentioned is universal or without caveats and exceptions.

and why does free = better?

 

[alecgraham]

Actually the Taliban officially support female schools these days

Oh, I'm sure they have a lovely brainwashing center where girls get to memorize the Koran all day and learn about the glories of being subservient. But, there are very recent documentaries about AQ blowing up girls' schools in various nations. For the most part, places of education are still a no-go zone for girls in AQ-dominated towns.

I suppose it would be a bit odd to call people who kept slaves freedom fighters eh

That is a logical knot indeed. Hypocrisy at its worst.

and why does free = better?

:-|

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

I'm serious.

I'm not saying less free is better - or that more free is worse.

But i find it interesting that we as a society seem to really value freedom, as that which makes our society great.

Is this really the case?

Is it the freedoms or the restrictions that make a place nice to live?

One could easily argue that it is the restrictions - tho then would more restrictions not possibly make for a happier life?

I'm just 'spitballin' here - but unless someone is advocating Anarchy (in the true definition) then surely anything else is not true freedom

 

[alecgraham]

I
...
But i find it interesting that we as a society seem to really value freedom, as that which makes our society great.
Is this really the case?
...
I'm just 'spitballin' here - but unless someone is advocating Anarchy (in the true definition) then surely anything else is not true freedom

Are you sure you're in London? Believe it or not, we actually do have laws in the west, not anarchy. Naturally, there is always a conflict between permission and restrictions. Some people want the right to keep weapons, but others have the "right" not to be shot. Many people want the freedom to use alcohol and even some drugs, but others want protection against drunk drivers.

So -- I can't believe I'm taking the time to type this out -- you have to distinguish between laws that protect citizens...and draconian restrictions whose authors *claim* is for the protection of citizens or for promoting quality of life but which in practice result in innocent students getting raped in Tehran prisons for peaceful protests and Saudi women getting whipped, literally struck with a leather whip, for wearing lipstick.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

What I find interesting is that we seem to (perhaps naturally) link civil freedoms with political freedoms.

(putting the "democracy is an illusion point to one side")

why is a dictatorship necessarily a bad thing, or rather, why are political freedoms a good thing.

Is it possible to have a positive society where political freedoms are non existent but other than that people are left pretty much alone to live their lives?

 

[alecgraham]

I guess different people have different levels of comfort when it comes to restrictions. In South Africa, you can probably get away with more, but things are a little more dangerous. In Singapore, there are many more restrictions, but the sidewalks are clean and the living (I hear) is pretty good.

A dictatorship isn't *necessarily* bad, but it usually works out that way due to human nature. A benevolent dictator would get things done more quickly than Parliament or Congress, but it's hard to find a good dictator these days. And even if you could, his spoiled son would ruin everything when his father passes away. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

funny thing is - and i always wonder this (genuinly) we (or rather our media) always make a big deal about people who get a rough deal from dictators, because they are trying to express their own political movements...

which in a dictatorship = getting rid of the dictator.

much - if not easily most - of the bad things dictators have done, have been for fear of losing power.

I wonder, would some of the more nawtee dictators (in terms of political prisoners etc.) would have been so nawtee if people would have let him stay in power?

 

[BrianLewis]

I don't see how you can say it's ok for the US to put a multi-million dollar bounty on the head of bin laden, but at the same time say it's not OK for your enemies to do it.

Just because you don't see a difference, does not mean that there is none. One was the leader of a violent terrorist group, the other is a person risking their life in a non-violent job in order to encourage the peace between two nations. I can clearly see the difference.

Would you call those that fought in the american war of Independence terrorists?

I'm sure as far as the ruling British state was concerned these people were terrorists.

I see the problem here. Your definition of a terrorist comes from the media that uses it for every act of violence in the world. You need to look up an actual definition. Terrorism is not simply to be a violent opposing force.

 

[Hezam]

I did not expect this from you alecgraham ! blaming Arabs for what alqaeda does is so wrong.

You said :

This is what Americans and Jews get for working their asses off to help make Arab countries a better place.

despite that it's hard to believe that the American gov and Jews want to help Arabs you could say " to help make Arab countries a better place for Americans and jews "...
The only thing that the US gov does is helping the " Governments that work against Arab interests ".

Ask any normal Arab if it's ok in Islam to kill ambassadors, In Islam they are called " Messengers " and It's absolutely against Islam to kill a messenger.

 

[alecgraham]

Maybe a clarification is in order, Hezam. I don't mean to suggest that Arabs are responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda. They are not.
What I meant was that westerners put themselves in danger out of a love for these countries -- not the mercenaries of course. They are there for pure profit or bloodlust or both. I do believe that Chris Stevens loved Libya, and the Libyans loved and appreciated Mr Stevens. When he was killed by AQ (or whoever), that hurt Libya more than it hurt the United States. But, of course, I don't mean that this is what the average Libyan on the street wanted to see happen. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Ask any normal Arab if it's ok in Islam to kill ambassadors, In Islam they are called " Messengers " and It's absolutely against Islam to kill a messenger.

I'm glad to hear it.

 

[Hezam]

Maybe a clarification is in order, Hezam. I don't mean to suggest that Arabs are responsible for the actions of Al Qaeda. They are not.

Thanks.

What I meant was that westerners put themselves in danger out of a love for these countries -- not the mercenaries of course. They are there for pure profit or bloodlust or both.

Persons who are connected to the US gov they don't help, Only free people help, My mother told me once about a nurse from europe, my mother said that the nurse was treating people for free, the nurse went across many places in Yemen especially the far villages where no hospitals or any simple services, Last time i heard about her she was killed by AlQaeda for " preaching " ... i asked my mother about her when she got killed and my mother said " she was treating patients for free not to turn them to any other faith " ....That day was one of the darkest days in my house..it was very sad news.

I do believe that Chris Stevens loved Libya, and the Libyans loved and appreciated Mr Stevens. When he was killed by AQ (or whoever), that hurt Libya more than it hurt the United States. But, of course, I don't mean that this is what the average Libyan on the street wanted to see happen. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Chris Stevens, May his soul rest in peace, and the shame to his murderers.