Drone attack kills 3rd in command Al-Qaida's number three — a co-founder of the terror network — has been killed in Pakistan's border area with Afghanistan, according to a statement attributed to the group that was posted on Islamist websites Monday. The statement did not say how Egyptian-born Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, who was also known as Sheik Sa'id al-Masri, was killed nor did it identify a successor. Al-Yazid was al-Qaida's financial director and ran its operations in Afghanistan. It was al-Yazid who shortly before the September 11 attacks transferred several thousand dollars to Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers. His death has been mistakenly reported before, but this is the first time it has been acknowledged by al-Qaida, whose statement added that his wife, three of his daughters, his granddaughter and other men, women and children were killed. One senior U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity told NBC News that al-Yazid was killed in an attack by a missile-carrying Predator drone aircraft. Other sources told NBC's Jim Miklaszewski that the attack took place more than a week ago. The U.S. did not want to publicize the death until al-Qaida had confirmed it, which it did Monday. 'A hand in everything' Another official called it "a big victory" in terms of counterterrorism, describing al-Yazid as "the group's chief operating officer, with a hand in everything from finances to operational planning. He was also the organization's prime conduit to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. He was key to al-Qaida's command and control." "In some respects, Sheikh Sa'id's death is more important for al-Qaida operations than if bin Laden or Zawahiri was killed," said Roger Cressey, former deputy chief for counterterrorism at the National Security Council and now an NBC News consultant. "Any al-Qaida operation of any consequence would run through him." Evan Kohlmann, who tracks al-Qaida for NBC News, added that al-Yazid "was one of the original founders of al-Qaida in 1988, and has served on the group's Shura Council since then. His death is a significant loss for al-Qaida." A report Monday that he was bin Laden's brother-in-law was incorrect. Al-Yazid, who was 56, had been involved with Islamic extremist movements for nearly 30 years since he joined radical student groups led by fellow Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri, now the No. 2 figure in al-Qaida after bin Laden. In the early 1980s, al-Yazid served three years in an Egyptian prison for purported links to the group responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. After his release, al-Yazid turned up in Afghanistan, where, according to al-Qaida's propaganda wing Al-Sabah, he became a founding member of the terrorist group. He later followed bin Laden to Sudan and back to Afghanistan, where he served as al-Qaida's chief financial officer, managing secret bank accounts in the Persian Gulf that were used to help finance the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington. After the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan in 2001, al-Yazid went into hiding for years. He surfaced in May 2007 during a 45-minute interview posted on the Web by Al-Sabah, in which he was introduced as the "official in charge" of the terrorist movement's operations in Afghanistan. ----------------------------------------------------------------- They will get them all eventually. DD
It's sad that some people who might not have been guilty got killed as well, but hopefully this helps a bit to prevent the death of more innocent people this guy would surely have been instrumental in orchestrating.
Horrible that women and children were killed too. Outside of a pure assassination, not sure they could have done it any other way. Still great news that they got this guy though. DD
I have no doubt that this guy was very important for Al Qaeda but it seems like since 9/11 we have killed or captured several people who are Al Qaeda's #3.
So, maybe, don't do it? In terms of combating terrorism, I don't know what this gains tactically. Seems more like symbolic victory -- one in which we were willing to kill women and children over.
I disagree, I think sometimes you just have to get into the mud with the other pigs....and get more dirty. DD
Regarding the innocents, that's Al-Q's version. Nothing in the story from the US side mentioned any collateral deaths. My guess is Al-Q probably overstates the number and the US probably understates it.
Al Quieda was finished a long time ago, don't see how people still believe that the network is alive and well. I guess using the name provides for an identifiable enemy, makes it easier to understand and sell the war to the public.
Not trying to sound like a Toby Keith song, but I don't think you can effectively combat al queda with this mindset. You have a chance to take out someone like this, you do it. You don't think it's important to take out al queda's COO? Yeah, if you believe al queda's account of the incident. (edit -- rimrocker beat me to it)
Who is more morally bankrupt? The man that uses a human shield or The man that shoots through the human Shield. Good cannot be claimed by either side in this type of thing. Do we hate Al Quida? Is this the Hate that Hate made? Is this going to be an ongoing cycle of Hate? Is this a War of Attrition? Who will be able to kill the most of the other side into submission? Rocket River not good. One step forward . . . two steps back.
All war is one of attrition, you have to take away the resolve, or kill enough of them for them to quit. The problem is that the USA is not prepared to go "all in" and whipe out a culture etc.... The only real way to really win a war is by attrition. And no, I am not advocating doing that.......but history has proven that to win a war, truly win it, you have to take away a societies resolve to fight it, and that means killing a lot of folks..... DD
This is the war on drugs all over gain. Just keep them out of the country. You kill one and another one pops up.
I don't think Genghis Khan strategies will fly today. The best way to win a war is to kill all the men and rape all the women. Does that seem like something anyone would want?
Exactly, you can't win a selective war, IMO, you got to get really dirty.....but I don't think the US will do that. So to me, drones are fairly ineffective, I would prefer a multinational hit squad that takes bad guys out on the sly..... If you are an evil dude you are a target..... Who wants war to begin with? DD
Actually. . . I was watching the military channel and it talked about Tsun Tsu [Sp?] and how we lose Vietnam While the US was waging a War of Attrition [like in Chess] . . .the Vietnamese were waging a war of occupation [like playing GO] that is neither here nor there There is more than one way to remove a enemies 'will to fight' Killing as many as possible is not always the way. At best it becomes a simmering flame under the underbrush of the forest fire it looks like it is out for now .. . but it is just waiting to flare up again Rocket River
In Vietnam though the USA did not go all in, they would move forward and fall back.... The generals and politicians fought about tactics in that war big time. And honestly the US is making some similar mistakes in the middle East right now..... I guess Iraq will be a good test as to whether that type of war actually works. DD
The next best thing to killing or capturing Bin Laden, would be killing off his chain of command, a head is useless without legs, arms, a chest or spine.
Yes but rather have the former. Killing Bin Laen is worth way more than killing everyone in his chain of command.
