Ayman al-Zawahri Calls for More Strikes Inside U.S.

Al Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri yesterday called for more lone wolf and other small scale attacks against the U.S. His reasoning is that even small attacks cause us to overreact with security, which is expensive and contributes to diminishing our economy.

In an audio speech released online a day after the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 strikes, Zawahri said attacks "by one brother or a few of the brothers" would weaken the U.S. economy by triggering big spending on security, SITE reported.

..."We should bleed America economically by provoking it to continue in its massive expenditure on its security, for the weak point of America is its economy, which has already begun to stagger due to the military and security expenditure," he said.

He also wants to see big strikes -- the kind that that take ten years to plan -- against the U.S.

< Thanks to a Sport-Coated Stranger | Latest on The Deluge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From his POV, it's been working (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    for a dozen years:  Why mess with success?

    My reaction was: why is this news? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    Wouldn't it fall into the category of SSDD?

    And, in arming those Syrian rebels, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:34:16 AM EST
    who are supposedly "moderates," (assuming we could identify them)  the US may, in essence, be arming al Qaeda and al Qaeda-linked rebels as the weapons fall into their hands.   And, in the event of the "moderates" success at regime change, the likely chaos that will ensue, will make the environment ripe for an al Qaeda take-over.  


    Send the weapons... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:49:13 AM EST
    and worry about it later worked out real well for us when the Afghans were fighting the Soviets.

    Call me an isolationist, but I wouldn't send so much as a baseball bat to nobody.  

    Besides, spending money on weapons for ourselves and others is exactly what al-Zawahri wants us to do...we wouldn't want to appease the motherf8cker would we?


    Actually it worked well (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    for what it was intended to do.

    Hurt the Soviets. Which was very important at that time.

    Who knew the Taliban would repay us for our help in their fight for independence by harboring/aiding Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda??

    But your point is taken. You can't trust religious fanatics.

    Which is exactly why I say "Let'em fight each other!" I mean even old men can learn from our mistakes of the past.

    Which is what we did with Iran and Iraq with a bit of help for Iraq...

    Wait... That's what we have done in Libya and now weapons for the rebels in Syria...


    Not sure about that... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:36:25 AM EST
    close calls aside, the Soviets never attacked NYC and DC.  Authoritarian communism can't sustain itself, mighta took a bit longer but I don't think we had to do a damn thing.  Accepting the premise that a peaceful co-existence was an impossibility, for arguments sake.

    Giving the benefit of the doubt that the unintended consequences could not be foreseen...now we know how this sh*t always backfires, and we need to stop.  We should work exclusively to disarm ourselves and the world, no more arms for nobody.  Not Israel, not Egypt, and certainly not Syria.


    Maybe al-Zawahri (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    is just upset because Washington isn't sending quite enough weapons to his fighters in Syria for them to be able to topple Assad for you?

    There must be some way somehow - maybe via a 'secure' untapped PayPal transaction or something - that you can send Ayman a donation, al Jim?


    Sorry for the typo (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    That should read "his freedom fighters in Syria". Of course.

    Hey, I say help'em both. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:42:29 PM EST
    Can you work that out??

    Oh, look! The all-purpose excuse: (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    "Hey! Who knew?"

    Well, anyone with a knowledge and sense of the region's history would've known, Jim, and it's really got nothing to do with Islam. Religion is just an excuse and a means to an end, as it has always been and probably always will be.

    Regardless of faith, whenever people seek to invoke the concept of divine guidance and thus claim to know so well what God them to do, we would do well to heed Susan B. Anthony's advice and take note how it always coincides with their own immediate desires.

    With regards to history, the people of Afghanistan are as rugged and tough as they come. They simply want others to leave them alone. They squabble incessantly amongst themselves but don't pick fights with outsiders as a rule, as long as you're just passing through. But if you have other ideas and threaten or cross them, they'll turn on you in a heartbeat.

    And going back to the days of Darius the Great of Persia and Alexander the Great of Macedonia, whose dreams of conquest in Asia met their end in Afghanistan a full millennium before the prophet Mohammed trod this earth, nobody's ever won a protracted war with the Pashtun and their neighbors on their home turf, the Hindu Kush.

    What made us think that when our turn came, the outcome was going to be different?



    Who knew?? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:47:50 PM EST
    I doubt that anyone actually thought about it.

    They were too interested in fighting a war from a position of weakness caused by the Left.

    So Donald, why did the Left do that??


    "send the weapons and (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    worry about it later..."    Your comment must have been picked up by NSA.   The CIA is providing arms to the Syrian rebels.  I can't tell you more about it because it is a covert operation. But, you can read about it in the Washington Post.

    What (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    a merry band of incompetents.

    Not (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    to mention that it is not at all clear whether the rebels, our horse in the race, have not used chemical weapons themselves.

    It is such a familiar pattern that the people who become our enemies are the ones we sucked up to when they served our purpose.

    And we never learn.


    Hmmm.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    The stupidity never ends (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    Of course, more of what we've done the last decade, which has proven an ineffective disaster, is what we need to do more of. Forget that Russia/Afgh in the early 80s and arming the Mujahadeen turned out to be a moronic blowback of unprecedented proportions. All that CSM piece evidenced, IMHO, was an utter and complete lack of free American imagination and creativity.

    Make America, genuinely, the greatest country on earth, and maybe then others will follow. Short of that, we're just fools for the M.I.C..

    Peace out, my friend.


    His reasoning is (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    that even small attacks cause us to overreact with security, which is expensive and contributes to diminishing our economy.

    His reasoning out-reasons any of the 'reasoning' of the majority of people who forget to wonder why this scare story hits the headlines right at the time the governments last major distraction fell apart.

    His reasoning is flawless. So is the reasoning behind the decision for the media to engage is scare mongering at this time.

    If it ain't broke don't fix it. These stories work.

    There must be a country that needs being bombed - surgically of course - to protect you.

    But it'll need to be done in a limited pinpoint manner of course.

    Just another Overseas Contingency Operation in a never ending string of Overseas Contingency Operations. Not a Long War. We're not bush. We don't do long wars.

    Doesn't Take a Genius... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    ...top realize they have, at least partially, won.  It's only takes an a trip that involves air travel to realize the bad guys have made us scared, of not only our own shadows, but the mere mention of shadows.

    I would add that his logic is seriously flawed in that the US Security industry is not hurting the economy one bit, if anything it may be the single biggest creator of jobs in the past decade.

    But stating that that we have basically given up all rights and freedoms that made us awesome, would probably not have the desired effect.


    What's the value proposition (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:20:33 PM EST
    of the security "industry"?

    What does it "produce"? Is there anything of tangible value there?

    Can I buy security in bulk, and sell smaller chunks of security at a profit, or incorporate pieces of security into manufactured products to add value to them?

    Is there anything to security that does not take away money and time and effort from real production?


    Not Saying I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    ...or argue it's usefulness, but the TSA alone employees 50,000+ people.

    You take all the cash infused into the economy because of 9/11, useful of not, it's one whopper of an influx of cash into our economy.

    Depending how deep you want to go, but you start adding Iraq and Afghanistan and I could probably argue that US security is the single biggest industry we have that is uniquely ours.

    Now if you are asking me if it's a complete waste of resources, definitely, but there is no question that security because of terrorism, is not hurting our economy one bit as al-Zawahri is claiming.

    One could also argue, our biggest 'industry', Financial Services, is in the same boat.  A self created waste of resources that costs us dearly with no real benefit, if anything, it's a huge liability as we all know.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    I'm not an economist, but it seems to be that there it's hasn't been an influx of cash into the economy, but rather just moving money around, and if so isn't that a take away from the rest of the economy? A transfer of wealth to parasite scaremongers?

    50,000 at what rate of pay? (none / 0) (#33)
    by BeDazzled on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:20:39 PM EST
    $10/hour for most? Just enough to pay rent and apply for food stamps? The bulk of the money is most likely going into the hands of the executives and the equipment, unless our nation's model of wealth has changed; though the economical growth charts would say it is still the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer.

    Thank you Zawahari for the military (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    Retirement that gets to even be mine for holding down the family fort.  Thank you for the bonus pays that were largely nonexistent before 9/11.  Thank you for the tax free pay when our soldier was in a war zone.  Thank you for the one promotion that greatly increased our income that nobody had to do much for other than show up and do your job.

    I want you to know I saved and spent it all very carefully and I'm feeding and raising a bunch atheists :)

    That's a failure to understand basic economics (none / 0) (#18)
    by woodchuck64 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    Ayman al-Zawahri:
    We should bleed America economically by provoking it to continue in its massive expenditure on its security,

    Paying more for security actually strengthens the US economy.  That $70 billion spent in 2011 is creating major growth in the security industry, which leads to new jobs, new technologies, and more wealth for Americans.

    What could bankrupt America is spending on more wars, but lone wolf attacks won't start wars.

    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    Zawahari is wrong on the economics. There is already an existing model that one can check. Lone wolf attack through suicide bombers was tried in Israel. Israel kept investing in the security industry and new technologies to thwart attacks. In the process the country has become one of the hottest economies in the world and a model nation when it comes to technology start up companies.

    Jobs in defense and security sectors cannot also be outsourced to other countries. If Zawahari thought about his economic model regarding bankrupting nations more carefully, he would realize how mistaken he is in his assessment.


    OTOH... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    you could argue all that security spending in the tyranny sector is benefitting the few at the expense of the many, and its a net negative for the economy at large.

    Booz Allen getting a fat contract to spy on us ain't really helping the economy, imo.  Spending say 65 of that 70 billion on infrastructure projects, otoh, could put a lot of people to work.


    optimal allocation (none / 0) (#22)
    by woodchuck64 on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    True, I'm sure the money could be put to better use, but it's still 2 million jobs .

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    the tyranny sector is booming, one of our few growth sectors, and one of the few sectors our government cares about.

    This may gladden your heart: (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    The real question is this. (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 11:50:51 PM EST
    When will we decide to eliminate the threat and what method will be use?

    Roman Peace anyone??


    Debellatio, huh, Jim? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 06:41:22 AM EST
    Sure ... why not?

    Can we assume you'll be in the vanguard ... as always?


    Thanks Ayman al-Zawahri. (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    I shudder to think how crappy our economy would actually be w/out the gvt expenditures for security you and your ilk have prompted.

    all these lone wolf types (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    would be better off if they just killed old Ayman and got on with their lives in peace.  Don't these idiots ever notice that guys like Zawahari are never the ones putting themselves in danger?