US drone strike in Yemen allegedly kills local al-Qaida leader and four others

[alp227]

Source: AP

A US drone strike targeting an al-Qaida leader in Yemen has killed five militants in the country's south, according to local officials.

The air strike was aimed at Qaid al-Dahab, a local leader of al-Qaida, who was travelling in a convoy of three cars near the town of Radda, 100 miles of the capital, Sana'a.

Yemeni authorities said four militants were wounded in the attack. The officials said al-Dahab's fate was not yet known.

The alleged terrorist's sister was the wife of Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born radical militant cleric killed by a US drone strike last fall.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/28/us-drone-strike-yemen-al-qaida

[Enrique]

1. yay we got al-Awlaki's brother in law

let's declare victory and end the war.

[Alamuti Lotus]

2. Xbox warriors raining death from above in support of a lousy, dictatorial status quo

Nine degrees of nifty, indeed, and a truly appropriate way to honor the memorial day holiday.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Busy, busy. Here a drone, there a drone...

...in how many countries are we killing people with drones?

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia? Is that it?

[Nihil]

4. Yes but he's not a "war president", he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

That means that instead of declaring wars, you just get your Xbox jockeys
to bomb the shit out of random countries.

If anyone else were to attempt this, they would be declared "terrorists".

[mikekohr]

5. When they quit flying planes into our skyscrapers, both full of innocent people

we will quit flying Hellfire missles through their windshields.

[Nihil]

6. Newsflash: They quit doing that over 10 years ago.

So where's your justification of your thirst for blood now then war-pig?



(And that's without going into any of the other reasons why your post was crap.)

[mikekohr]

8. NewsFlash, they're still trying.

[EFerrari]

7. Greenwald today on "militants":

By “militant,” the Obama administration literally means nothing more than: any military-age male whom we kill, even when we know nothing else about them. They have no idea whether the person killed is really a militant: if they’re male and of a certain age they just call them one in order to whitewash their behavior and propagandize the citizenry (unless conclusive evidence somehow later emerges proving their innocence).

What kind of self-respecting media outlet would be party to this practice? Here’s the New York Times documenting that this is what the term “militant” means when used by government officials. Any media outlet that continues using it while knowing this is explicitly choosing to be an instrument for state propaganda — not that that’s anything new, but this makes this clearer than it’s ever been.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/singleton/