# Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.



## Carol (Jun 8, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in *Iraq* who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air raid north of Baghdad  a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. Iraq's prime minister and U.S. officials said his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a first-hand look at his face


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 8, 2006)

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GREAT NEWS!!!

Thanks!


----------



## pstarr (Jun 8, 2006)

Good job!  He's probably got a front row seat in hell with his name embroidered on it...


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 8, 2006)

Hats of to the SFO 72 Virgins Dating Service.  

He now has his wish.  Now on to the next one.


----------



## MartialIntent (Jun 8, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi
> 
> BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in *Iraq* who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air raid north of Baghdad  a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. Iraq's prime minister and U.S. officials said his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a first-hand look at his face


Thanks for posting this Carol I hadn't heard that. Zarqawi was an extremely astute propagandist and an exceptionally competent leader. This will have dealt a considerable blow to their cause. 

I wouldn't feel at all hypocritcal for saying well done to those who put him down!

Respects!


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 8, 2006)

:revenge: 

*BOOM* Baby!!!


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> :revenge:
> 
> *BOOM* Baby!!!


 
From the BBC News web site



> Three men - including Zarqawi - and two women were killed


 
Let's hope those other two men, and two women were just as guilty, eh?


----------



## MJS (Jun 8, 2006)

I heard about this on the NEWS today!  Seeing that he was one of the top guys, I'm sure this dealt a pretty good blow to the terror organization.  Probably won't make everyone (the terrorists) give up, but nonetheless it caused some disruption.  We really need to do more of these types of attacks, targeting the leaders.

Mike


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> From the BBC News web site
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope those other two men, and two women were just as guilty, eh?


 
Do you mean guilt by association?


----------



## MartialIntent (Jun 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> From the BBC News web site
> 
> 
> 
> Let's hope those other two men, and two women were just as guilty, eh?


Collateral damage is unavoidable in certain situations though I'd imagine those who had him assigned as their mark didn't intend to create other victims. Some would say this was unfortunate. Without the facts who knows. Personally though, I don't care. The target objective was achieved with some extra damage. So what?

Respects!


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 8, 2006)

Bonus Points: 

"Jordanian-born Zarqawi was said to have been in a meeting with associates at the time."

A sad day for terror and its supporters.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 8, 2006)

Well it is good news, now lets wait to see who is next.
Terry


----------



## Kacey (Jun 8, 2006)

I woke up to Bush's speech about this on the news this morning, but since I wasn't really awake, I appreciate the details and links.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2006)

It is kind of sad that two women were killed while taking out this animal. But if they were innocent, then I put the blame on al-Sarqawi himself and not the US. Of course, I somehow doubt the women were innocent. Gee, they didn't know who this guy was?  I have more sympathy for the guys Clinton killed when he bombed the Chinese embassy or the Sudanian asprin factory by mistake. Those folks do not seem to be involved in anything bad at all. An adult who would be that close to as-Zarqawi does not strike me as being pure in intention.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2006)

Personally, I think that this man's death is a good thing for forces on the ground in Iraq.

However, I won't be shouting "touchdown" along with some people whenever someone is killed.

It is an unfortunately neccessary and terrible thing.


----------



## Kreth (Jun 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> However, I won't be shouting "touchdown" along with some people whenever someone is killed.


Of course, we need to be sensitive to other cultures.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAL!!!!






:uhyeah:


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Bonus Points:
> 
> "Jordanian-born Zarqawi was said to have been in a meeting with associates at the time."
> 
> A sad day for terror and its supporters.


 
Can you ever "meet" with someone with whom you are not an "associate"?


----------



## hapki68 (Jun 8, 2006)

I was very happy when I read the news this morning.  Ultimately, it won't do much to stop Al Quada, which is a loose organization with no real head, but it certainly deals a good blow for a while.

I generally subscribe to the "harm no living thing" philosophy, but I could've easily skinned this guy alive over the course of a few days and slept like a baby.  He was truly evil -- pure and simple.

And I'm sorry for any innocent people who were killed... but war is messy, and it would've been a mistake to not take him out when we had the chance.

Patrick


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 8, 2006)

It's great Zarqawis dead, I've been wating for this for a while. I doubt anyone with him was an innocent bystander, the guy has been Iraq's most wanted for the better part of two years.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 8, 2006)

Good riddance to bad rubbish.  

To the men and women of the armed forces, I salute thee.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Jun 8, 2006)

Have you looked at the Democrat blogs on this story.....crazy.

....and in one voice, Democrats everywhere cried out in terror....


----------



## arnisador (Jun 8, 2006)

This is a good news story (AP article). It would've been nice to get only him, but if others were at his "isolated safe house" then I assume they knew the risks they were taking.

I note from the linked story that "U.S. warplanes dropped 500-pound bomb_s_" on his hiding place (emphasis added). That's gotta hurt.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 8, 2006)

CNN now has the actual bombing run footage on the website.


----------



## Rick Wade (Jun 8, 2006)

Do we have a hall of non rememberance for this guy?

Good ridance he got what he deservered.  

Aloha

Rick


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 8, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> CNN now has the actual bombing run footage on the website.


 
Two...not one....TWO 500 pounders....

I only wish I got to see what was written on the sides of them


----------



## matt.m (Jun 8, 2006)

This has been a good day for America.  I believe they got Darth Vader, not I think it is time to get the Emporer(Bin Laden).


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Can you ever "meet" with someone with whom you are not an "associate"?



Let us reveal in a happy moment for a little while dude. You can return to your normal paranoia and Republican bashing later, but let those who love freedom and despise terror enjoy it for a little while please.


----------



## stone_dragone (Jun 8, 2006)

Based off of my information, the Iraqi Police played a major part of the operation which resulted in this event.  Without taking credit away from my brothers-in-arms (it happened just north of my FOB), I must give credit to the Local National Police involved...another sign that they are "growing up" and taking care of their own country.

Not another day closer to a total national pull-out, but another day closer for me (and a good day it was)!


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Let us reveal in a happy moment for a little while dude. You can return to your normal paranoia and Republican bashing later, but let those who love freedom and despise terror enjoy it for a little while please.


 
Are you stating, implying, or insinuating that the poster does not love freedom and despise terror?


----------



## Jeff Boler (Jun 8, 2006)

I think what he is stating that for some reason.....a good day for America ends up being a bad day for the left.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 8, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> It is kind of sad that two women were killed while taking out this animal. But if they were innocent, then I put the blame on al-Sarqawi himself and not the US. Of course, I somehow doubt the women were innocent. Gee, they didn't know who this guy was?  I have more sympathy for the guys Clinton killed when he bombed the Chinese embassy or the Sudanian asprin factory by mistake.


Yet both were initiated in the same way. Millitary acted on intelligence. Glad this wasn't yet another another wedding party.


----------



## hapki68 (Jun 8, 2006)

Jeff,

How about supporting your comments with facts?  Certainly not necessary if you just want to express an opinion... but they don't sound very credible without them.

Actually, they sound pretty clueless... but that's your right.  

"American Progress," the Democratic Party's leading think tank, headlines that the killing of Zarqawi is good news.  Doesn't sound like anyone crying out in terror.  

As you know, if anyone is terrified, it's the Republicans at the thought of voter backlash this November.  Americans just don't like corruption (DeLay/Abramoff) or incompetence (underestimating the number of forces needed in Iraq/letting Bin Ladan slip away in Afghanistan/being wrong on WMD/starving FEMA and losing New Orleans because of it).

P


----------



## Jeff Boler (Jun 8, 2006)

hapki68 said:
			
		

> As you know, if anyone is terrified, it's the Republicans at the thought of voter backlash this November. Americans just don't like corruption (DeLay/Abramoff) or incompetence (underestimating the number of forces needed in Iraq/letting Bin Ladan slip away in Afghanistan/being wrong on WMD/starving FEMA and losing New Orleans because of it).
> 
> P


 
I don't think the Republicans are terrified at all.  While it's true that voters may not like corruption or imcompetence, they don't like negativity, lack of vision / ideology, either.  If they think that focusing on the negative aspects of the current administration will get them back into power instead of focusing on ideas, they are sadly mistaken.

But you wont take my word for it.  And I hope you don't.


----------



## hapki68 (Jun 8, 2006)

Perhaps you're right.  Perhaps voters would rather have corruption and incompetence rather than negativity towards the current administration.  We'll see.

But understand this.  There are two schools of thought in the Democratic party as to how to respond to the Administration.  One says that we should lay out an aggressive agenda as an alternative.  The other -- supported by Newt Gingrich -- is that elections are not won or lost on your agenda... rather than are referendums on the current Administration.  Newt points out that the Contract on America had little to do with the Republicans capturing Congress.  Rather, it was anger at corruption of the Democrats and some of Clinton's policies.  The Dems have, thus far, wisely chosen to sit back and watch the Republicans eat themselves alive.  The strategy has been working.  Republicans are running scared of Bush and his poll numbers are in the toilet.  There's no one for the Reps to blame for the myriad of terrible policies that have the country in a funk.

It's absurd to think that half the country has no agenda or the party doesn't have the ability to come up with one.  The question is one of strategy.

P


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Let us reveal in a happy moment for a little while dude.


 


			
				arnisardor said:
			
		

> It would've been nice to get only him, but if others were at his "isolated safe house" then I assume they knew the risks they were taking.





			
				MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> I doubt anyone with him was an innocent bystander, the guy has been Iraq's most wanted for the better part of two years.


 
This from an Associated Press report.



> Al-Zarqawi died with five others, including a woman, *a child* and the man who unwittingly led the Americans to him  his deputy and spiritual adviser, Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi, according to U.S. officials.


 
I will point out two items here.

There are seldom 'happy moments' in warfare. 

And al-Zarqawi's whereabouts prior to the invasion was known to U.S. intelligence officials and opportunities to eliminate him from the mountains in the North of Iraq were not seized. It is entirely possible, the years of destruction he has wrought on Iraq could have been avoid by the U.S. military, except for choices by very senior Administration officials.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And al-Zarqawi's whereabouts prior to the invasion was known to U.S. intelligence officials and opportunities to eliminate him from the mountains in the North of Iraq were not seized. It is entirely possible, the years of destruction he has wrought on Iraq could have been avoid by the U.S. military, except for choices by very senior Administration officials.



I doubt that is the case. Trying to find someone like him is a bit difficult, and sometimes these scum surround themselves with kids and such to avoid being hit. If it is deep in bad territory you can't send in troops before they get away and if there is a lot of kids around, you don't want to bomb.

I don't know this is the case, but I am not going to say anything with as much conviction as your accusations against the administration.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I doubt that is the case. Trying to find someone like him is a bit difficult, and sometimes these scum surround themselves with kids and such to avoid being hit. If it is deep in bad territory you can't send in troops before they get away and if there is a lot of kids around, you don't want to bomb.
> 
> I don't know this is the case, but I am not going to say anything with as much conviction as your accusations against the administration.


 
How much you feel my accusations are based on conviction, rather than actual fact is really quite irrelevant. This article, from a few years back, provides quite a few documented links to get someone in search of the truth started.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?cid={E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}&bin_id={BAE36AE2-AAC4-4C10-A571-3428F4AADDD1}

It is fairly well documented, even if O'Lielly can't talk about the truth ..... Ansar al-Islam operated outside Saddam Hussein's control, under the protection of an American No Fly zone.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 8, 2006)

I feel a sense of relief at hearing this news, as I have some friends in the military and any slowing of the terrorist activities puts them one small step closer at coming home.  However, that said, I feel no joy in the death of others.  To cheer and carry on at the death of this person is to make ourselves no better than those we call our enemy.  

*:asian: in silent contemplation*


----------



## Rick Wade (Jun 8, 2006)

And yet another thread run off the road of the topic and into the political ditch never to RETURN.  Let me help everyone with the title of this thread.

*Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out*


Aloha

Rick


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 8, 2006)

_*Moderator Note:

* Please return to the original topic of conversation.

Please also note that ANYONE can report posts to the moderating staff if discussions veer off topic.

Thank you,

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator_


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 8, 2006)

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060608/...raq_al_zarqawi
> 
> BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in *Iraq* who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air raid north of Baghdad  a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. Iraq's prime minister and U.S. officials said his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a first-hand look at his face


 

About damn time

maybe this will slow at least one of the terrorest groups a little and let that country have a little time to get itslef in order


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 8, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> About damn time
> 
> maybe this will slow at least one of the terrorest groups a little and let that country have a little time to get itslef in order



Totally agreed. This will not be the end, but for anyone interested in peace in this region, its a very important step. I'd love for Iraq to be able to police themselves, and a very important step is taking out these maniacs that target both civilians and military. My hope is this knocks some common sense into the terrorist and gets the reconciliation started.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2006)

Excuse me if I'm not jumping up and down.  I guess I don't "love freedom" and "hate terror" enough.   

Some people need to realize that a "well developed" sense of morality can veiw an act as morally reprehensible *and* unfortunately neccessary *at the same time*.

The bottom line is that this may be a big step towards ending this whole God aweful war and getting our people outta there.  

Nuff Said.

If Conservatives want to turn this into some kind of political "look at the great job we are doing" moment, fine.  Their track record says otherwise and American's have notoriously short memories when it comes to stunts like that.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are seldom 'happy moments' in warfare.



This is a "happy moment" in warfare.

A terrorist who has been killing innocent civilians and planning these murders has been killed. A terrorist who beheaded civilians on TV has been killed. One of the leading terrorist in the region, behind many international terrorists and avowed followers of Bin Laden had been killed.

Yeah, its a pretty happy moment in warfare.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> This is a "happy moment" in warfare.
> 
> A terrorist who has been killing innocent civilians and planning these murders has been killed. A terrorist who beheaded civilians on TV has been killed. One of the leading terrorist in the region, behind many international terrorists and avowed followers of Bin Laden had been killed.
> 
> Yeah, its a pretty happy moment in warfare.


 
And the death of the child in the house?  1,000 pounds of high explosives dropped on him or her.

And today, amidst the celebrations of our nation, a soldier from the 172 Stryker division died from small arms fire. A colleagues step-son is in that division, from Alaska. The news reports have not yet released a name.

I'm sure you will understand if I find that to be little reason for celebration. I find all of these moments, even if necessary, sad.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Excuse me if I'm not jumping up and down.  I guess I don't "love freedom" and "hate terror" enough.
> 
> Some people need to realize that a "well developed" sense of morality can veiw an act as morally reprehensible *and* unfortunately neccessary *at the same time*.



Mind sharing why this is morally reprehensible and "unforunately" neccessary?



> The bottom line is that this may be a big step towards ending this whole God aweful war and getting our people outta there.
> 
> Nuff Said.
> 
> If Conservatives want to turn this into some kind of political "look at the great job we are doing" moment, fine.  Their track record says otherwise and American's have notoriously short memories when it comes to stunts like that.



Yeah, I hope its a big step towards ending the conflict. I'd love to see Iraq emerge as a more powerful nation, self governed with a free people. Thats sort of the whole point.

I'd be content if Conversatives did not try to milk the situation. Report it as it is. State the facts. There is more left to do. However, I'd appreciate if the Left did the same thing. I see headlines like "does it really matter", "why did it take so long", "it won't make a difference", trying to make this as negative as possible. Is it possible it won't help? Possibly, I accept that, but it sure is not going to hurt. 

I think thats one reason for my first post on this thread, not neccessarily a critic of ME, but as a statement that I don't want political bias to try and ruin a good event for the sake of politics. There is hardly no way this can be construed as a negative unless you: 1) want us to lose 2) think Islamic fundamentalism is fine and terrorism in Iraq is the way to go 3) think its better for Al-Zarqawi to live then to kill a family harboring him in a safe house 4) think his death is totally meaningless.

for points 1) and 2), if you believe that, then I have nothing to say to you. For 3), I beg you to consider the thousands that Al-Zarqawi killed, kidnapped, tortured and planned for the like. Its not pleasant, but I'd rather take out those harboring him than risk thousands more deaths. For 4), time will tell. I think the impact will  be big. There will likely be another to rise, but not the same caliber of man. Time will tell.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that this may be a big step towards ending this whole God aweful war and getting our people outta there.
> 
> Nuff Said.
> 
> If Conservatives want to turn this into some kind of political "look at the great job we are doing" moment, fine. Their track record says otherwise and American's have notoriously short memories when it comes to stunts like that.


 
you live by the sword, you die by the sword.  al-Zarqawi was an enemy of the United States.  his death or capture was necessary, however, you won't find troops packing their bags preparing to come home because of it.  

you fight a war one battle at a time.  however long it may take, perseverance pays off.  the battle at home is most times harder than that taking place abroad.

i don't believe anyone is "parading" al-Zarqawi's death as a political "lookie here" stunt.  his death is very newsworthy.  the American people need to hear it.  i sure haven't seen any "milking" of it.

there will certainly be others that step up and take his place.  they too will most likely meet the same fate.  and when they do, it will be in the news.  you can choose to care or not care.  it makes no difference.  but i will tell you this; the soldiers in the sand are smiling from ear to ear.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you live by the sword, you die by the sword. al-Zarqawi was an enemy of the United States. his death or capture was necessary, however, you won't find troops packing their bags preparing to come home because of it.
> 
> you fight a war one battle at a time. however long it may take, perseverance pays off. the battle at home is most times harder than that taking place abroad.
> 
> ...


 
I've paid a bit of attention to the GOPs reaction, IMO, they certainly are at least "preening their feathers" a bit...

As far as the soldiers reaction, I'm sure they are grinning.  It's a major accomplishment for them and I'm sure a few of them are thinking that its a major step towards getting back home.  

...and I'm right with them on that thought.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And the death of the child in the house?  1,000 pounds of high explosives dropped on him or her.


 
_"Last night was the first time that we have had definitive, unquestionable information as to exactly where [al-Zarqawi] was located, knowing that we could strike that target without causing collateral damage to other Iraqi civilians and personnel in the area," Caldwell said

_Frankly, after dropping two 500lb bombs, I'm suprised there are not more deaths. When you drop big bombs, people die. You try your best to target those you want, and they obviously made the effort. The only way to insure absolute accuracy and fool proof killing of him would be to stick a knife in him when noone else is near. Otherwise there is always the risk of collateral damage.



> And today, amidst the celebrations of our nation, a soldier from the 172 Stryker division died from small arms fire. A colleagues step-son is in that division, from Alaska. The news reports have not yet released a name.
> 
> I'm sure you will understand if I find that to be little reason for celebration. I find all of these moments, even if necessary, sad.



I'm sorry for your colleagues loss. Sometimes big news overpowers personal losses. Today my wife had a relatively major surgery, so in that respects, its no cause for celebration. However, I can still decouple my sadness in the affairs from my happiness regarding Al-Zarqawi. I can understand how a death would make that difficult. My condolances to your colleague.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 8, 2006)

I don't want to leave the wrong impression. At this time, it is unknown if the soldier from Iraq was Dave's step son or not. Dave's step-son is in that division. Just waiting for Dave, for now. 

American Soldiers are still dying. Soon we will reach 2,500 US deaths.

I also think that Michael Berg's interview on CNN this morning was interesting. CNN has not replayed the complete interview with Soledad O'Brien .... but some interesting clips are found at 

www.crooksandliars.com


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Mind sharing why this is morally reprehensible and "unforunately" neccessary?


 
People have already shared much of what I think.  Its the "collateral damage" that really bothers me.  Killing innocent people is morally reprehensible and unfortunately neccessary because of the circumstances our politicians have place our soldiers.  

Look, I basically agree with what people are saying about Zarqawi.  I've seen the "videos" where "he" beheaded people.  However, I don't think that laughing and cheering and beating one's chest like its some sporting event is appropriate.  And I think that it probably could make the situation worse.  This sort of insensitive behavior is akin to dancing on the graves of the innocents who died.  That is no way to "win the hearts and minds" of the people, IMO.



> There is hardly no way this can be construed as a negative unless you:


 
I find your 1-4 ways of viewing this scenario entirely artificial.  I want you to imagine that you are a member of the village where Zarqawi was killed and that you personally know some of the innocent people who died.  Perhaps they were your family members.  And now you see Americans jumping up and down and shouting...

"GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

How are you going to feel about this?  I think its a good bet that it might very well be construed as negative!  

The bottom line is that even though this may be a big step towards ending the war, an even bigger step, IMO, would be a little more sensitivity and a little less of the "ridem cowboy" hootin and hollarin.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I also think that Michael Berg's interview on CNN this morning was interesting. CNN has not replayed the complete interview with Soledad O'Brien .... but some interesting clips are found at
> 
> www.crooksandliars.com


 
:asian:


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People have already shared much of what I think.  Its the "collateral damage" that really bothers me.  Killing innocent people is morally reprehensible and unfortunately neccessary because of the circumstances our politicians have place our soldiers.


killing innocents has happened as long as war has existed. Its not pleasant, but neither is the insanity that has been happening over there. I'd be happy if noone was killed at all, but thats not going to happen.



> I find your 1-4 ways of viewing this scenario entirely artificial.  I want you to imagine that you are a member of the village where Zarqawi was killed and that you personally know some of the innocent people who died.  Perhaps they were your family members.  And now you see Americans jumping up and down and shouting...
> 
> "GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
> 
> ...



I'd be upset if my family were in the asprin family Clinton bombed, or the Chinese embassy. People going to work, doing their jobs. Honestly, if I aligned myself with Islamic Fundementalism, I'd probably be upset about the family maintaining the safe house (assuming thats what happened). I've also read varying reports that he was at a meeting there w/ other al quieda members. Details still fuzzy from what I can read. I'd still be sad if it were my family member and I did not agree, but as an adult, you make your own educated decisions. If they were harboring him, they knew who he was.

When you harbor one of the worlds most wanted terrorists, you put your family in harms way. When you keep your child with you at that time, you put your children in harms way. I'm sure they had families, and perhaps children too. To be sensetive would imply not supporting rabid terrorist, killing indescriminantly. You endanger youself, your family and those around you. Sad, but true.



Now, I'll tell you why I'm happy. Justice has been served. While we have killed a few possible innocents (don't know about degree of innocence yet), we have prevented the deaths of thousands more. While -no- deaths would be prefered, I'm happy with the choice of the "lesser of the two evils". Less Iraqi civilian deaths, less American deaths. I'm in favor of that. Tragic they lost a child, but how many children have been saved? We have possibly moved the time line for us getting out of Iraq (at least most of us). I'll be happy when they can take over their own security at last. Hopefully this moves that date back some.


----------



## Adept (Jun 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Some people need to realize that a "well developed" sense of morality can veiw an act as morally reprehensible *and* unfortunately neccessary *at the same time*.



I actually disagree. If an action that would normally be construed as morally reprehensible (such as killing a child) is deemed necessary, then I believe it can no longer be considered morally wrong. Obviously the pro's outweight the con's, or else the action would not be deemed necessary, and once the balance swings towards the pro's, the action in question is no longer immoral. Utilitarian, possibly machiavellian, certainly. But it is how I feel on the subject.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jun 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Now, I'll tell you why I'm happy. Justice has been served. While we have killed a few possible innocents (don't know about degree of innocence yet), we have prevented the deaths of thousands more. While -no- deaths would be prefered, I'm happy with the choice of the "lesser of the two evils". Less Iraqi civilian deaths, less American deaths. I'm in favor of that. Tragic they lost a child, but how many children have been saved? We have possibly moved the time line for us getting out of Iraq (at least most of us). I'll be happy when they can take over their own security at last. Hopefully this moves that date back some.



frankly i don't give a hoot about folks doing the hokey pokey and high fiving zarqawi's piddling life being snuffed out. he got what he wanted so he must be in heaven getting his 72.  everybody's happy. 

BUT let's not kid ourselves about less deaths or that this going to bring a quick close to the war there cause the insurgency isn't being fueled much by al quada these days-- bombs are going to continue to go off- sunnis and shias will continue to slaughter each other- clans and gangs will continue to hash revenge hits and mob hits alike. US soldiers will continue being wounded and killed as long as they're there.

i recall how some general back 2004 said that after the first sweep of fallujah that yielded a 1000 or 2 dead insurgents-- that his troops had broken the back of the insurgency and the countless milestones and turning points that everyone keeps pointing to that changes nothing.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> I actually disagree. If an action that would normally be construed as morally reprehensible (such as killing a child) is deemed necessary, then I believe it can no longer be considered morally wrong.



That does seem to be a logical point of view. We do not enjoy the fact that some slime ball brought a child into a place where they knew a terrorist was hiding and the child was killed as a result. But the alternative is not acceptable.

Back in WWII the U.S. Army Air Force used to start a bombing run on a factory from a good way out and spread out over a mile to get it. Everyone in that zone stood a good chance of dying just so we could take out one ball bearing factory.

I am jumping up and down in joy that a man who would have caused a whole lot of deaths is dead. I am not celebrating the death of the child. But I am celebrating in the knowledge that some things are needed. Just as the rains bring life, they drown a few people each year. It helps to keep things in perspective.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> That does seem to be a logical point of view. We do not enjoy the fact that some slime ball brought a child into a place where they knew a terrorist was hiding and the child was killed as a result. But the alternative is not acceptable.
> 
> Back in WWII the U.S. Army Air Force used to start a bombing run on a factory from a good way out and spread out over a mile to get it. Everyone in that zone stood a good chance of dying just so we could take out one ball bearing factory.
> 
> I am jumping up and down in joy that a man who would have caused a whole lot of deaths is dead. I am not celebrating the death of the child. But I am celebrating in the knowledge that some things are needed. Just as the rains bring life, they drown a few people each year. It helps to keep things in perspective.


 
I am mostly in agreement with you (and I think most people here).  This post sums up alot of what I think and feel about this.  I'm not going to celebrate the killing of any human though.  That doesn't seem right to me.  I feel that it only greases the path with nationalistic fervor and will lead to even more killing neccessary and unneccessary.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not going to celebrate the killing of any human though.  That doesn't seem right to me.



Some people _need_ killing.

People, innocent children, will probably be saved by this man's death. That is a cause for celebration. We are agonizing over every innocent that gets caught in the crossfire. This animal _targetted_ children when he could.

I still remember a photo of a man holding the corpse of his three year old nephew that had been killed in a bombing outside of a hospital. They set up a car bomb where they knew the main victims would not be those that carried rifles, but were the most innocent among us. If this action stopped even a few of these types of attacks where innocents were the main target, then I can only rejoice at his death.

May he rot in hell!!!!!


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And the death of the child in the house? 1,000 pounds of high explosives dropped on him or her.


 
Anytime an innocent person is killed, be it by terrorist fire or US fire, it is a tragedy.  However, innocent or not, it should be common sense for these people, that if they're hanging around a known terrorist, that they possibly could be putting their lives in his hands.  Obviously if these people are associating with a terrorist, they don't care much for their own lives or the lives of their children.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> That does seem to be a logical point of view. We do not enjoy the fact that some slime ball brought a child into a place where they knew a terrorist was hiding and the child was killed as a result. But the alternative is not acceptable.


 
And unfortunately, that is what these scum bags do.  They'll hide out in areas populated by innocent people, people who want some freedom in the country where they live, in hopes that the US will not shoot or drop bombs, out of fear that they'll put innocent peoples lives in danger.

Just goes to show how much compassion a terrorist has..zero!

Mike


----------



## MartialIntent (Jun 9, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I want you to imagine that you are a member of the village where Zarqawi was killed and that you personally know some of the innocent people who died. Perhaps they were your family members. And now you see Americans jumping up and down and shouting...
> 
> "GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
> 
> ...


While I certainly agree with your sentiment as nice in theory, how quickly we have forgot those perverse scenes of jubilation and exactly this "jumping up and down and shouting" you describe, that we all witnessed widespread across the middle east after the horrors of 9/11.

I'm afraid for me there should be absolutely no compunction on the part of civilians like ourselves in *any* warring country to be sensitive towards their opponents - quite the opposite in fact, and especially since it would seem apparent by the continued hostilities towards allied troops out there and persistent "threats" of further actual jihad action here in the UK and elsewhere that they have no such empathy for us, our social liberties or our civil and personal rights. 

Officially yes of course there are war treaties to be followed and there is certainly a precedent within many moral dictates to suggest we should hold more caring views of our enemies, but personally I think it's getting *far* too easy to abandon the "team" we _should_ belong to for the sake of assuming some higher moral viewpoint [not you personally] over the mere proletariat; a part of which I'm absolutely unashamed to count myself.

Again I say,* well done* to those who had a hand in Zarquawi's assassination. This man was a highly committed indivudual; very driven to an eventual final outcome and I for one take heart in the fact that there will be no further orchestration by him personally in this already very damaging conflict.

Respects!


----------



## Kensai (Jun 9, 2006)

An emotive subject to say the very least... Where to begin, what to say...

I served in the 2nd Gulf war in the RN, had a mate killed, was shot at, a deeply, deeply unpleasant experience. I do speak from direct experience, but in my opinion (disclaimer - that's all it is  ) a total sham war. Yes, I'll not shed a tear for this guy, and the comment about how he now has what he wants with his 72 is spot on. However.... There are MANY countries that have morally reprehensible regimes, that we in the West do NOTHING to remove. Oh yes, we sabre rattle, make lots of noises at the UN, but we don't DO much. 

The truth always depends upon a certain view, and while I'm certainly not condoning this cretin, and am perfectly content that he's no longer a member of the human gene-pool. BUT. To several tens of millions of Muslims, he wasn't a terrorist, he would have been regarded as a freedom fighter. Crazy? Yes, screwed up? Of course. In our eyes... In theirs, Bush is the same. Nothing more than a terrorist. This isn't JUST about Islamic fundamentalism, it's also the way that America is viewed in the world, and it's that view that's bought it into conflict now. Two areas of the world with COMPLETELY alien cultures. Islam, and the US. Governments always need an enemy, otherwise, why pay several hundred billion dollars on defence? 

To conclude, I'd say that his death will not stop the events in Iraq, but the world as a whole will not mourn his death. It SHOULD hopefully slow events down, (if it doesn't make him a martyr) and perhaps Iraq can begin a slow rebuild to normality. Let's hope so.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 9, 2006)

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> While I certainly agree with your sentiment as nice in theory, how quickly we have forgot those perverse scenes of jubilation and exactly this "jumping up and down and shouting" you describe, that we all witnessed widespread across the middle east after the horrors of 9/11.


 
I do not recall 'widespread' 'jumping up and down and shouting' after 911. There were some instances of that, but that description is not in line with the reality of the events.

The vast majority of the world was horrified with the events on 911. That is as true from the Kingdom of Saud to the streets of Tehran to Europe, Asia and South America.

To describe such behavior is to create a revisionist version of history.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 9, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Anytime an innocent person is killed, be it by terrorist fire or US fire, it is a tragedy. However, innocent or not, it should be common sense for these people, that if they're hanging around a known terrorist, that they possibly could be putting their lives in his hands. Obviously if these people are associating with a terrorist, they don't care much for their own lives or the lives of their children.
> 
> Mike


 
 . . . and  Mike, this reply is not directly tied to your quote alone.... 

But, this was not a battlefront attack ... this was a targeted assassination. I read a rather thoughtful piece last night questioning the policy of targeted assassinations ... and do they serve the objective intended.

Should the United States military be in the policy of using this technique, targeted assassination? When is it appropriate, when is it not appropriate? How has it worked out for other countries that use this technique?

My, this does create some interesting thoughts, doesn't it.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do not recall 'widespread' 'jumping up and down and shouting' after 911. There were some instances of that, but that description is not in line with the reality of the events.
> 
> The vast majority of the world was horrified with the events on 911. That is as true from the Kingdom of Saud to the streets of Tehran to Europe, Asia and South America.
> 
> To describe such behavior is to create a revisionist version of history.



Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.

the vast majority of the world was horrified, but not all of them. Take off the blinders dude.


----------



## MartialIntent (Jun 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do not recall 'widespread' 'jumping up and down and shouting' after 911. There were some instances of that, but that description is not in line with the reality of the events.
> 
> The vast majority of the world was horrified with the events on 911. That is as true from the Kingdom of Saud to the streets of Tehran to Europe, Asia and South America.
> 
> To describe such behavior is to create a revisionist version of history.


Well I ain't sufficiently omnipotent to think I'd know anything of "the vast majority" - but at the end of the day, it's all propaganda after all, just depends on who you choose to support [and I know who I'm with]. 

However, this Middle Eastern *triumphalist* jumping up and down is *exactly* the image that filled my screen and scored my eyes on the eve of 9/11. And it's an image I don't think I'll forget. 

I won't pursue this argument gratuitously. I can see little to be gained from this tirade of second guessing the folk that are out there doing their jobs and similarly the haranguing of the police we've had last year here in the UK for shooting a suspected suicide bomber.

The only motivation or basis I can envisage [call me limited] for anyone continuing these hollow arguments and attempting to engender that ensuing cynical attitude in people *against* *their own forces* is disruption and fostering of disunity. Personally, this is a thing I'm afraid I find distasteful.

Respects!


----------



## mantis (Jun 9, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.
> 
> the vast majority of the world was horrified, but not all of them. Take off the blinders dude.


those images were broadcasted right after 911 but they did not actually happen after 911.  If you recall the images broadcasted in palestine for instance had a pretty clear day light. The images were broadcasted less than 1 hour after 911. but at the time 911 happened it was already the night in palestine.  I am just amazed how people always fall for poor fabrication of videos.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 9, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.
> 
> the vast majority of the world was horrified, but not all of them. Take off the blinders dude.


 
The blinders are not on.

Please read my post .. Quote



> There were some instances of that


 
The anticedent to the pronoun 'that' is 'widespread jumping up and down and shouting'.

I guess the term 'widespread', as used by MartialIntent means that the event made it to a television screen. I guess that's why the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrations are WideSpread at military funerals. The whole world is protesting military funerals, eh? Or Natalie Hollaway's disappearence must be indicative of 'widespread' abductions of blond girls getting drunk, right?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 9, 2006)

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Well I ain't sufficiently *omnipotent* to think I'd know anything of "the vast majority" - but at the end of the day, it's all *propaganda* after all, just depends on who you choose to support [and I know who I'm with].
> 
> However, this Middle Eastern *triumphalist* jumping up and down is *exactly* the image that filled my screen and scored my eyes on the eve of 9/11. And it's an image I don't think I'll forget.
> 
> ...


 
What a strange way to close this post. As the content of the post seems to show so little respect.

Regarding news reports of the world reaction after 911, it does not require omnipotent discernment; just the ability to read the news. And if you believe that all news is propaganda, then belief of anything must be in doubt.

As for motivations, that you are unable to discern motivations beyond your description, does not mean there are not other motivations. It would seem that propaganda does limit much.


----------



## hapki68 (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm not a subject of the British monarchy and won't offer an opinion on events in the UK.

However, when it comes to the U.S...

Whereas some may find "second guessing" their government unpatriotic, I believe it's unpatriotic not to do so.  The U.S. is not Saudi Arabia, thank Allah, particularly because we have a free press, civil society and citizens who can express their views.  

For example, does anyone still think Vietnam was a good idea?  Jesus Christ, even Former Defense Secretary MacNamara has said it was a mistake and that's after tens of thousands of lives were lost!  Who out there knows more about that war than he does??? Thank god patriots with brains were questioning or the numbers would be higher.

And I don't remember right-wingers supporting blindly their government when Clinton had been democratically elected.  Far from it.  They attempted to remove the democratically-elected President through baseless scandals (Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate.  Remember those gems?).  After spending $40 million in taxpayer dollars and coming up empty handed, they discovered he got a 3 minute blowjob.  Whoo-hoo!

The "you're not supporting our troops when questioning the government" line is wrong.  Americans have a patriotic responsibility to question -- and keep questioning -- when other Americans are sent anywhere to put their lives on the line for us.

Patrick


----------



## Kensai (Jun 9, 2006)

hapki68 said:
			
		

> I'm not a subject of the British monarchy and won't offer an opinion on events in the UK.
> 
> However, when it comes to the U.S...
> 
> ...


 
That's spot on...


----------



## MartialIntent (Jun 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What a strange way to close this post. As the content of the post seems to show so little respect.
> 
> Regarding news reports of the world reaction after 911, it does not require omnipotent discernment; just the ability to read the news. And if you believe that all news is propaganda, then belief of anything must be in doubt.
> 
> As for motivations, that you are unable to discern motivations beyond your description, does not mean there are not other motivations. It would seem that propaganda does limit much.


Thank you for these comments.

Respects!


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Perhaps your TV was turned off. I seem to recall alot of jubulation, shots fired in the air and people in the middle east going bananas, throwing around Bush images in a noose, burning flags, etc.


 
Yes, I too, recall alot of 'celebration' after 9/11.  People having quite the party, people passing out candy to the kids, etc.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> . . . and Mike, this reply is not directly tied to your quote alone....
> 
> But, this was not a battlefront attack ... this was a targeted assassination. I read a rather thoughtful piece last night questioning the policy of targeted assassinations ... and do they serve the objective intended.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, this does bring up some good questions.  I'll be the first to admit that I am not into politics, nor am I as up to date as some, when it comes to these types of discussions, so thats one of the reasons I rarely frequent "The Study."  

I do feel though, that given the habits of the terrorists, how they hide out, move cautiously, etc. that these types of attacks are probably the best course of action.  I would think that if we did an obvious attack, the chances for escape would probably be much greater.

I guess we can sit here and debate for page after page, which I might add, does prove for some interesting reading, but in reality, no matter what we think of the actions of the military, they're going to do what they want.  Like I said in my first post...we succeeded in getting rid of a top guy in the org. but this is by no means an end to the problem.  It'll be a matter of time, and someone else will step up to fill his spot.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

Mike


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 9, 2006)

hapki68 said:
			
		

> I'm not a subject of the British monarchy and won't offer an opinion on events in the UK.
> 
> However, when it comes to the U.S...
> 
> ...


 
Patrick,

It appears that a majority of Americans right now agree with you on this:

Poll: Majority support troops, not Iraq war

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 9, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Yes, this does bring up some good questions. I'll be the first to admit that I am not into politics, nor am I as up to date as some, when it comes to these types of discussions, so thats one of the reasons I rarely frequent "The Study."
> 
> I do feel though, that given the habits of the terrorists, how they hide out, move cautiously, etc. that these types of attacks are probably the best course of action. I would think that if we did an obvious attack, the chances for escape would probably be much greater.
> 
> ...


 

Mike, thank you for your thoughtful participation. I've said it before, here in the study, all of our opinions can carry equal weight, whereas, in discussions about kenpo, your years of training, trump my relatively new status in the art.

I would suggest that we citizens have, at some level, a responsibility to have an opinion on the subject of 'target assassinations' (or rendering of prisons to other states ... or detentions without council ... or aggressive interrogation methos ... or torture). Because in our country, the military is governed by civilians. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, and he answers to the President, who is also a civilian. Thus, if the military types take actions with which we in the populace do not agree, we have the opportunity to alter the leadership of that organization. In the 2004 election, Guantano Bay was not an unknown, nor the detention of Jose Padilla. But the majority of citizens (apparently) choose to keep the government that undertook these actions. It seems to me the action of a fearful nation ... but we've had that discussion elsewhere.

But, if the terrorists move and hide and communicate in obscure ways, is the military the correct instrument to catch, detain, or kill them? If we were to decide that 'targeted assassinations' were an appropriate policy for combating terrorists, the next question becomes, is a laser guided 500 pound bomb the correct tool to execute that policy? How has this policy worked for Israel? 

My fear is that through a clumsy action, we have created the Hydra. The unintended consequences might be increased recruitment to terrorist camps. Perhaps a CIA 'splinter cell' type assassination was not possible ... the silent disappearance of al-Zarqawi. But will the photos of his corpse on the front page of every newspaper and website reduce recruitment, or enflame it?


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Mike, thank you for your thoughtful participation. I've said it before, here in the study, all of our opinions can carry equal weight, whereas, in discussions about kenpo, your years of training, trump my relatively new status in the art.


 
Thanks for the compliment.:asian: And as far as your comment regarding Kenpo, IMHO, I feel that just because someone may not be as highly ranked or have as many years in as some, that does not mean that their opinion holds less weight. I've had some good discussion with you in the Kenpo area and you've brought up some very good points.



> I would suggest that we citizens have, at some level, a responsibility to have an opinion on the subject of 'target assassinations' (or rendering of prisons to other states ... or detentions without council ... or aggressive interrogation methos ... or torture). Because in our country, the military is governed by civilians. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, and he answers to the President, who is also a civilian. Thus, if the military types take actions with which we in the populace do not agree, we have the opportunity to alter the leadership of that organization. In the 2004 election, Guantano Bay was not an unknown, nor the detention of Jose Padilla. But the majority of citizens (apparently) choose to keep the government that undertook these actions. It seems to me the action of a fearful nation ... but we've had that discussion elsewhere.


 
Well, I'd think that just like when a town or city wants to do something that could possibly raise taxes, the citizens of that town/city have a vote. I'm sure if it came to a poll or vote on whether or not to use these types of attacks, we'd certainly see some interesting replies. Then again, would the votes really matter? We've seen countless polls on the war and after how many years, we're still there. 



> But, if the terrorists move and hide and communicate in obscure ways, is the military the correct instrument to catch, detain, or kill them? If we were to decide that 'targeted assassinations' were an appropriate policy for combating terrorists, the next question becomes, is a laser guided 500 pound bomb the correct tool to execute that policy? How has this policy worked for Israel?


 
If I recall correctly, didn't Israel use a unmanned drone to target the caravan of cars carrying some leader of some org.? Personally, off the top of my head, I can't really think of another solution. I suppose someone could join the terror group, on hopes of assassinating some of the top guys, but I doubt a low level terrorist would be able to get close enough to the top guys to do such a thing. Could the ground troops have stormed the safe house? Possibly, but that could have ended up in a big fire fight, with the potential for more troop loss as well as the possible escape of the target. 



> My fear is that through a clumsy action, we have created the Hydra. The unintended consequences might be increased recruitment to terrorist camps. Perhaps a CIA 'splinter cell' type assassination was not possible ... the silent disappearance of al-Zarqawi. But will the photos of his corpse on the front page of every newspaper and website reduce recruitment, or enflame it?


 
Oh, I'm sure it'll be a matter of a few days, and we'll see the editorial section of the papers filled with articles written from people who think that posting this guys face on the page was in poor taste, people complaining that their 5 yo child saw the pic and asked a ton of questions, etc. etc. Personally, I have to wonder about those types of people. I mean, come on, you can't even turn on the TV without seeing someone getting shot, blown up, in bed, or half naked. We should be used to it by now.

Mike


----------



## Kensai (Jun 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Mike, thank you for your thoughtful participation. I've said it before, here in the study, all of our opinions can carry equal weight, whereas, in discussions about kenpo, your years of training, trump my relatively new status in the art.
> 
> I would suggest that we citizens have, at some level, a responsibility to have an opinion on the subject of 'target assassinations' (or rendering of prisons to other states ... or detentions without council ... or aggressive interrogation methos ... or torture). Because in our country, the military is governed by civilians. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, and he answers to the President, who is also a civilian. Thus, if the military types take actions with which we in the populace do not agree, we have the opportunity to alter the leadership of that organization. In the 2004 election, Guantano Bay was not an unknown, nor the detention of Jose Padilla. But the majority of citizens (apparently) choose to keep the government that undertook these actions. It seems to me the action of a fearful nation ... but we've had that discussion elsewhere.
> 
> ...



Good last point. The problem with any fundamentalism, and in particular Islam, is the risk of matyrdom... I think it would be best simply to move on from here, as efficiently and quietly as possible. However, as politicians will see it as a coup, I doubt that will happen. 

Politicians do rely on peoples fear. Don't give it to them. Become aware of the world around you, the people, the cultures, a lot can happen because of ignorance. Ask yourself about US foreign policy. 50 years ago was the US subject to attack by Islamic fundamentalism? Or is it something that has arisen through increasing American intervention in several spheres of influence that contain Islamic culture. I know a lot of what the US does is at the worlds behest, and to an extent a lot of the nonsense that America has to endure is due to being the "top-dog". The same was said of the British 100 years ago, of the Romans, etc etc... The flip side is however, that you must accept that not everyone wants democracy, an alien concept I know, but they don't. Not everyone wants "the American dream" either. The world without American leadership is one full of doubt. The world with "sensible" American leaders is much better. Don't withdraw from the world, just get to know it better.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 9, 2006)

mantis said:
			
		

> those images were broadcasted right after 911 but they did not actually happen after 911. If you recall the images broadcasted in palestine for instance had a pretty clear day light. The images were broadcasted less than 1 hour after 911. but at the time 911 happened it was already the night in palestine. I am just amazed how people always fall for poor fabrication of videos.


 
Methink you need to have a look at that time zone thing. That part of the world is 7 hours ahead us the US east coast. 9/11 happened around 0900. It would have been 1600 in the ME. Hardly night time.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2006)

Well, it looks like the bastard had time to suffer a little before he died.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi


Sorry to interupt the conversation, but I thought I would post something relating to the thread title.

It looks like there were no children killed, if the latest reports are to be believed. That is a great relief. Two women were killed, but anyone who is an adult and made a choice to be near this guy does not get any sympathy from me.

Oh, and instead of blowing him away when they recognized him, the Americans tried to save his life. Kind of weird for an assassination.  

But I suppose that if we are to ever find Osama Bin Laden, and we can't get troops there in time or it is too dangerous, then we should let him go rather than try to bomb him. That is the impression I get from some posts here.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Well, it looks like the bastard had time to suffer a little before he died.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_zarqawi
> 
> ...



I certainly haven't suggested that! In fact, if American attitudes such as that weren't so bloody bellicose, then you wouldn't have had half the trouble you have! Takes two to tango son...


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> But I suppose that if we are to ever find Osama Bin Laden, and we can't get troops there in time or it is too dangerous, then we should let him go rather than try to bomb him. That is the impression I get from some posts here.


 
Well, that's a fine presentation of a false choice. The only two options presented are to a) let him go ... or ... b)drop a bomb. A wonderful presentation of 'Ann Coulter Reasoning" there.

How does that quote from Thomas Covenant go ... someone around here has it as a signature line.
Never hurt when restraining is enough, 
never maim when hurting is enough, 
never kill when maiming is enough.​And how many times, I wonder, have you referenced "Blowing up an Asprin Factory", as an accusation of Clintonian incompetence? Was that too dangerous, or could we not get troops there in time, or something else?

And, one report I saw, is this was the 137th consecutive week the US military dropped a bomb on the known hideout of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Of course, the press conferences for the first 136 weren't quite so well attended.


P.S. This report ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13237281/ ... still indicates that someone's daughter was in the house and killed from the attack.



> A total of six people died when the house was destroyed by two 500-pound bombs on Wednesday. An Iraqi army officer said they included two women and an eight-year-old girl. ... At the site surrounded by palm groves, two thin foam mattresses were scattered across the rubble on Saturday, along with a small carton of pineapple juice with its straw intact.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And how many times, I wonder, have you referenced "Blowing up an Asprin Factory", as an accusation of Clintonian incompetence? Was that too dangerous, or could we not get troops there in time, or something else?
> 
> And, one report I saw, is this was the 137th consecutive week the US military dropped a bomb on the known hideout of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.



Well, I would love to see that report on the 137th week..... :wink2: 

But the asprin factory is an example of how we deal with the intelligence we are given. In some cases, political cases, the choice made is in haste and bad- in this case Clinton ordered the bombing on the eve of the Monica Lewinsky case. The press here in Japan is convinced that it was at least partly to do with diverting attention and some more time might have revealed that it was not a threat. If only Clinton had waited and sent in an asset to check a single source. It is not like an entire country was the target....

But if he ordered the bombing in good faith, then it would have been justified. To send in troops in the middle of that type of enviroment would be suicide for them. Instead of sending in troops, sending in a bomb would be the best bet IMO. The same holds true for this.

You want the get the terrorists alive if possible. It is not for some symapthy for them, but rather to try to get info that might save American lives out of them. But if the risk of them getting away or a lot of troops getting killed reach a certain point, then sending in bombs is the best option.

So to complain about assassination stuff is to in reality say that you would rather let someone go if we can't capture them alive. If we find out where Osama Bin Laden is in the middle of a very hostile area in Pakistan, then it might be that we would be faced with the choice of sending in bombs or an almost certainty that he would get away and/or a lot of American troops would die. I would rather we catch Osama alive and squeeze him for information- but not at the risk of him getting away or causing a lot of American deaths.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So to complain about assassination stuff is to in reality say that you would rather let someone go if we can't capture them alive. If we find out where Osama Bin Laden is in the middle of a very hostile area in Pakistan, then it might be that we would be faced with the choice of sending in bombs or an almost certainty that he would get away and/or a lot of American troops would die. I would rather we catch Osama alive and squeeze him for information- but not at the risk of him getting away or causing a lot of American deaths.


 
You assume that I am complaining about 'targeted assassination'. I am saying the country has now made this a policy, with no discussion or forethought of ramifications and blow back. Our country has only ever had a formal policy against targeted assassinations of leaders of foreign countries - I believe President Ford signed that executive order. 

I think the policy is flawed ... but that is not the argument in this case ... the argument in this case, is that *we have* persued the policy of targeted assassination, but is the method of execution appropriate? 

The decision was made to launch two 500 pound bombs from an F-16. In other instances, we know we have used the Predator. Are these the appropriate choices? ... wedding parties ... 8 year old girls ... Do we cavalierly  reign down death on innocents?

So, if Clintons intelligence was bad, and he wagged the dog by the cruise missle stikes to Sudan and Afghanistan .... What dog was Bush wagging, when his intelligence was bad?


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2006)

Well, whats done is done, and there's no changing what happened.  I would however, be interested in hearing what other thoughts people have as far as other options that could've been used.

Mike


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 10, 2006)

Looks like after we shelled him, he tried to get away.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060609/D8I4VN101.html

""He obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was the U.S. military," Caldwell told Pentagon reporters via videoconference from Baghdad."

Of course an Iraqi witness said the troops then put the boots to him. 

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9351294/detail.html

Death by bombing was too quick anyways. I personaly wouldn't care if they did.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You assume that I am complaining about 'targeted assassination'. I am saying the country has now made this a policy, with no discussion or forethought of ramifications and blow back. Our country has only ever had a formal policy against targeted assassinations of leaders of foreign countries - I believe President Ford signed that executive order.
> 
> I think the policy is flawed ... but that is not the argument in this case ... the argument in this case, is that *we have* persued the policy of targeted assassination, but is the method of execution appropriate?
> 
> ...


 
michael,

if you wish to talk about innocent deaths, unjustified assassinations, and wagging dogs, please start a separate thread committed to such.  the title of the thread is pretty specific. 

on a side note, the U.S. military just killed a very evil man.  what seems to be your problem?  why do you take issue with this?  why don't you just forget the political rhetoric and state your mind.  if you agree, fine; if not, do something else.

damn!


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You assume that I am complaining about 'targeted assassination'. I am saying the country has now made this a policy, with no discussion or forethought of ramifications and blow back.



No, it has not. Al-Zarqawi was not targetted for asssassination. They did not shoot him when they found him alive, but tried to help him. In wartime, you bomb things if you have to. If the target is going to get away before you can reach him, you bomb him. You have guys with guns trying to kill enemy leaders all the time- they are called snipers. It is not the same as some guy with a silenced pistol on the streets of Rome.

In this case, the goal was to eliminate the head of a terrorist band by any means possible. It was not a shoot on sight order, but in combat (strangly enough) people do tend to shoot first instead of giving the other guy a chance to surrender.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> michael,
> 
> if you wish to talk about innocent deaths, unjustified assassinations, and wagging dogs, please start a separate thread committed to such. the title of the thread is pretty specific.
> 
> ...


 
Sapper6 .... 

Please explain to me the limits of discussion in a thread. I want to understand your belief how far from the topic one can go before one is scolded publicly. 

If the only purpose of this thread is mindless cheerleading over death and destruction, then perhaps we could submit a request to Mr. Hubbard to create a 'Only if you agree with me' forum. 

God only knows this forum can't handle any dissent ... who needs free speech, dialog, and thoughtfulness anyhow ... Oops, there I go again ... of to political rhetoric again.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sapper6 ....
> 
> Please explain to me the limits of discussion in a thread. I want to understand your belief how far from the topic one can go before one is scolded publicly.
> 
> ...



Ahem ahem

_


			
				A MODERATOR said:
			
		


*Moderator Note:

* Please return to the original topic of conversation.

Please also note that ANYONE can report posts to the moderating staff if discussions veer off topic.

Thank you,

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator
		
Click to expand...

_
Planning on letting mods know there are no longer limits on conversations? Want a different topic, start a new thread, or defend current merit of content. I'm personally enjoying seeing it here. Seldom agree with anything you have ever said, but its always good for a good laugh


----------



## fnorfurfoot (Jun 10, 2006)

What I find sort of funny (and by funny, I mean really stupid) is that we dropped two bomb on the guy.  Am I crazy or does that mean that we really wanted him dead?  So now we find out that the bombs didn't kill him right away.  So now we need to look like we were trying to save him.  But wait, there is the possibility that instead of helping him (the man we tried to blow up with big bombs) our soldiers might have beaten him to death.  I am pretty certain that dead is dead.  Why should it matter how it happened?  I'm not saying that they did, but if it did go down that way, what difference does it make.  I believe that the two bombs dropped on his home gave the message that we wanted him dead.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sapper6 ....
> 
> Please explain to me the limits of discussion in a thread. I want to understand your belief how far from the topic one can go before one is scolded publicly.
> 
> ...


 
this thread is about one of the most wanted terrorists on this planet coming to terms with his fate.  a large majority of this thread and the people of the U.S.A. tend to be in agreement of this fact.  all of your posts in this thread seem to lean toward seemingly "innocent" dead bystanders, the manner in which he was killed, and even the opinions of the people posting in this thread.  

my question is, why do you have such a problem with the United States military killing this man?  why do you take so much offense against the people on this board that support such act?  in short, what is your friggin' problem?

my hope is that you will answer these questions with what you actually feel, rather than throwing up a couple internet links about the atrocity of war and the right-leaning republican party.

you can question the "whys" of war all day long.  you will never understand why.  you have already made up your mind.  it will make no difference.  sympathize all you wish.  the man took innocent lives.  your republican-elected-ordered military dealt to him what he had deserved.  you got a problem with that?  tough ****.  vote again next near.  tell all your friends to vote the way you want.  spread the word; the republicans are killing innocent people.  the war isn't being managed in the way you'd prefer.  best of luck to you and your belief in the next election.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Ahem ahem
> 
> 
> 
> Planning on letting mods know there are no longer limits on conversations? Want a different topic, start a new thread, or defend current merit of content. I'm personally enjoying seeing it here. Seldom agree with anything you have ever said, but its always good for a good laugh


 
I am wondering how discussing the policy of, and the ramifications of 'targeted assassination' is a different topic from the 'targeted assassination' of Zarqawi?

Perhaps you could explain it to me? 

To my simple little mind ... they seem to be the exact same topic; from a specific point of view, and a general point of view. 

But, go ahead guys, give me the boundaries in which you wish to play. I'm getting the vibe that boundary is "Cheer and celebrate that we killed a bad guy --- and nothing else".


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sapper6 ....
> 
> God only knows this forum can't handle any dissent ... who needs free speech, dialog, and thoughtfulness anyhow ...


 
that's pretty funny.  you'd be suprised just how incorrect that statement is.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> this thread is about one of the most wanted terrorists on this planet coming to terms with his fate. a large majority of this thread and the people of the U.S.A. tend to be in agreement of this fact. all of your posts in this thread seem to lean toward seemingly "innocent" dead bystanders, the manner in which he was killed, and even the opinions of the people posting in this thread.
> 
> my question is, why do you have such a problem with the United States military killing this man? why do you take so much offense against the people on this board that support such act? in short, what is your friggin' problem?
> 
> ...


 
Why thank you Sapper6, this is almost the beginning of a discussion. 

Your question "why do you have such a problem with the United States military killing this man?"
My answer, "I do not have a problem with the United States military killing this man." ​Your question "why do you take so much offense against the people on this board that support such act?"
My answer, "I take no offense against people on this board who support the military killing this man."​Your question, "what is your friggin' problem?"
My answer, "I don't understand what you are asking."


​My question for you; "Why do you believe this (dropping bombs on a terrorist) is an act of war?"

My next question for you; "Where are the limits of the United States government dropping bombs on people with whom they have a problem?"

My next question for you; "Why is it OK to drop a bomb on his head today, and it was not OK to drop a bomb on his head four years ago?".


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> God only knows this forum can't handle any dissent ... who needs free speech, dialog, and thoughtfulness anyhow ... Oops, there I go again ... of to political rhetoric again.


 
Michael, I personally don't appreciate that implication as regards to the Administration of this site. Your constant posts containing dissenting opinions suggest the contrary is quite true. The fact is, you would be hard pressed to find a forum as open to RESPECTFUL differences of opinion as Martial Talk is.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Michael, I personally don't appreciate that implication as regards to the Administration of this site. Your constant posts containing dissenting opinions suggest the contrary is quite true. The fact is, you would be hard pressed to find a forum as open to RESPECTFUL differences of opinion as Martial Talk is.


 
Jonathan Randall .... 

I hope you will appreciate the tone during the last 6 or 8 posts where two posters have told me that they 'laugh' at my opinions and comments. And I think we can agree that they are not commenting on my ability to be humorous. 

It seems to me that if I don't walk "lock step" in line with some on this board, they resort to sarcasm, name calling and attacks on my personal politics. Earlier on this thread, one poster seems to suggest that I am the personification of "the left". If my interpretation is incorrect, I will gladly look to understand their comments.

I think the Administration of this board is excellent. I have financially supported this board almost since I first discovered it. The comment you quote should more accurately been directed to the posters on this thread, who can't seem to see the tragedy in this event ... or acknowledge that I see this event as tragic; and chastise me for this opinion.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Why thank you Sapper6, this is almost the beginning of a discussion.
> 
> 
> My question for you; "Why do you believe this (dropping bombs on a terrorist) is an act of war?"
> ...


 
you have legitimate questions Michael.  these don't really pertain to the thread in which they take place, but hey, why waste the bandwidth of another thread just for clarity, eh?

1.) the elimination of this terrorist enemy is not an "act" of war, but rather, a necessary, significant part of the war on terrorism and its' counterparts aiming destruction and harm against you and every other United States citizen.

2.) obviously, we as a leading nation of this planet cannot go reigning destruction on anyone we please and those we dislike.  the terrorist in question took the lives of innocent people, Iraqis and Americans.  he vowed further destruction and violence against the U.S. and its allies, not limiting his mission to the middle eastern theater.  do i really need to explain to you why al-zarqawi needed to be eliminated?  c'mon man.

3.) was al-zarqwi a viable threat to the United States 4 years ago?  what action has taken place in the last 4 years that would substantiate his killing?  what has he done within the last 4 years that would place him in our crosshairs?  perhaps you and i read different newspapers.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 10, 2006)

this is for the two posters above
as this thread is takeing some twists an some interesting questions have come from it may i suggest that you start a thread in the study or where ever you want titled " political /targeted assassination right or wrong ".
in that threa you many voice your thoughts and others may have their say also  it might be a bigger area of discussion depending on how you phrase you first post in it.  You may have other thoughts on a title  your choice.

Now facts are still comeing in on Abu Musub al-Zarqawi but i remember hearing that he was targeted by a tip or information was given as to where he would be so did anyone get the 25 millon that was on his head


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 10, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have financially supported this board almost since I first discovered it. The comment you quote should more accurately been directed to the posters on this thread, who can't seem to see the tragedy in this event ... or acknowledge that I see this event as tragic; and chastise me for this opinion.


 
i commend you on your monetary dedication to this forum, like myself.  it's a pretty OK place.  i enjoy the content and the people, as do you, or else you wouldn't be here.  however, you will find very few people within our realm of reality, whether it be on this forum or elsewhere, that feel that al-zarqawi's death is tragic.  those that feel this way are viewed as being sympahetic to him personally, his actions, and his beliefs.  if you are one of these people, you are certainly entitled to this.  however, i do not believe you to be one of these people Michael.  i believe you to be a freedon loving, born and bred American; relishing everything there is about being such.  sadly enough, i also believe you to dislike the war taking place in Iraq so much that you will take dissent in almost everything that takes place there.  my wish is that you'd accept the fact that some things are required.  you want your troops to come home.  that's great man.  al-zarqawi's death was a requirement for this to take place.  swallow that reality.

may this thread get back to it's original intent.

abu musab al-zarqawi has been eliminated.  good riddance.  may this war end very soon.

:asian:


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jun 10, 2006)

I cant seem to generate a tear over a guy who chopped the head of of Mr. Pearl. A non-combatant. This guy was obviously a "combatant" operating in a theater of war we are involved in. High fives all around. Michael can send a card if he feels so inclined.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jun 11, 2006)

fnorfurfoot said:
			
		

> What I find sort of funny (and by funny, I mean really stupid) is that we dropped two bomb on the guy.  Am I crazy or does that mean that we really wanted him dead?  So now we find out that the bombs didn't kill him right away.  So now we need to look like we were trying to save him.  But wait, there is the possibility that instead of helping him (the man we tried to blow up with big bombs) our soldiers might have beaten him to death.  I am pretty certain that dead is dead.  Why should it matter how it happened?  I'm not saying that they did, but if it did go down that way, what difference does it make.  I believe that the two bombs dropped on his home gave the message that we wanted him dead.



yeah- i like the part about putting the guy on a stretcher too... the west is too civilized to admit that killing is what war's are all about. western military forces are always apologizing in some way for doing what they train to do. the proper treatment of zarqawi at that point would have been a bullit to his skull and call it a day-- but who wants to look like a cold blooded killer? on the other hand had they indiscriminately sprayed automatic fire into the home cause they weren't sure that they got him, heck that's ok (see Uday and Quasay on that)... so dropped bombs from the sky, launched sea to surface air missles, tanks, etc...  that killing of the enemy (and anyone else in the wrong place) is legit. walk up, put a bullit in the squirming rat's head... well, bad. 

war is and always be a steady stream of sick and amusing contradictions. joe heller explained that to us years ago.

the moral questions that folks ask here, have no concrete answers. for the men and women who have to fight wars and operate in those contradictions- it's all about what you can live with in the end.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> the proper treatment of zarqawi at that point would have been a bullit to his skull and call it a day-- but who wants to look like a cold blooded killer?



We don't do that. We will kill when it looks like the best choice in a bad situation- and war is one long series of bad situations.

But if someone is helpless, we take them prisoner. That is just the way we work. And later on, we may hang them if we find they deserve it, but that option has to be thought out in a calm, cold manner.

Even if you do not think the guy deserves to live, it is in our best interests to try to get him alive in order to try to get some information out of him. There may have been things he could have told us that could have saved innocent lives.

But when you deal with guys that keep suicide explosive vests around, you have to be very careful. That is just the way things work.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 11, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> however, you will find very few people within our realm of reality, whether it be on this forum or elsewhere, that feel that al-zarqawi's death is tragic.


 
I will direct you to the statements of Mr. Michael Berg on CNN's Soledad O'Brien's news show. 

I guess I need to leave this thread at this point. I have had several moderators indicate that *my* questions are inappropriate to this discussion. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> This forum is for the serious discussion of non-martial arts topics including world events, social and political issues, or other items not covered in the other forums.
> 
> Please keep thread drift to a minimum, and focus on the main ideas of the topic. If you find yourself drifting off, please start a new thread to focus on it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2006)

If we can actually talk about the matter of al-Zarqawi, then the following might be of interest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060610/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060609173218

It looks like the military is taking advantage of what they got from the attack and are not letting the cockroaches flee into the darkness.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jun 11, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> We don't do that. We will kill when it looks like the best choice in a bad situation- and war is one long series of bad situations.
> 
> But if someone is helpless, we take them prisoner. That is just the way we work. And later on, we may hang them if we find they deserve it, but that option has to be thought out in a calm, cold manner.
> 
> ...



you are writing as if these guys are cops. they are not cops. the kill in war because it's THE SITUATION. it's called war. you kill the enemy. 

Zarqawi was deemed more important dead than alive when they started blowing up buildings they thought he was hiding in.

if they wanted him for intelligence gathering they would have had troops in the ready to raid the house-- remember they were tracking the guy, they had inside info, some one told these guys which house he was in. they were also 100 per cent sure of the target. that's why they bombed it.

notice how they RAIDED all the other suspects for intelligence gathering instead of blowing the buildings to pieces?

so again IN CONTEXT the logical thing to do is to walk up-- put a bullit in the head of the guy. move out. mission successful. is it what we do do? no. and your reasons for that are mostly why-- but also because we suffer the contradictions that come with our western mentality that demand we be morally and ethically superior to our enemies. our way of life is what we're protecting when we go to war. we don't want to be feel like or be seen as cold blooded killers, when in fact that is what soldiers are trained to be. 

uh, what exactly is the topic? seems the post was simply stating a fact about zarqawi being killed--- any tangent surrounding his death seems good for discussion.

best to all.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 11, 2006)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see tens of thousands of Muslims "invading" mainland USA. "Our way of life"? We defended that by attacking a country that didn't stand a cats chance in hell of defending itself? When Hussein and Bin Laden had been on record stating that they hated each other, there was no tentative real link between the two? When Hussein was about as Muslim as I am? Islam is not a new "Commie threat" that you can have a new cat and mouse war with. This isn't another "yeehaaaoughww ride 'em cowboy" conflict here! 

I have no problem with this guy having been taken out, but there is a wider  issue/context that is at play here, and I'm not sure a great deal of American audiences are aware of that. CNN is NOT the only view of the world. Everything in life has some form of causal start point, 9-11 happened for a reason, the Iraq war happened as a consequence of that. America under Clinton of all people supposedly passed a law that gave US agents acting in foreign countries infallibility from foreign laws, how dare they? Who ON EARTH is America to decide such issues for everyone else? That is part of the issue here. Britain had the same attitude 100 years ago, we had the Black hole of Calcutta, you had 9-11. America gives a lot of foreign aid to countries in time of need. So? Are they the only one? America takes in a lot of refugees from war torn parts of the world. So? Are they the only one to do that? The world does not owe America anything. When I was in Iraq 3 years ago, I over heard some US marines saying that "they wouldn't stop until there was a Mc D's on every street corner in Baghdad..." "And that" I thought to myself, "is why you're in this bloody mess in the first place". I love individual Americans. I find you to be articulate, hard working, well reasoned. But you do have this view of the world that it somehow "owes you", that "American is best", that "CNN tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Until you start questioning your political leadership, and stop believing everything you hear in the press, and your huuuuge corporations meddling in foreign/governmental affairs, then 95+% of Earths population that isn't American will continue to have a mild dislike/mistrust/irritation of all things American. A crying shame. And Islam will continue to be a thorn in the side of the US. 

Zaqawi is dead, good. There are however, wider issues than him being dead, or why he's dead. Wake up and smell it guys. This isn't a war to be won by killing one guy, Zaqawi, Bin Laden, Hussein whoever, this is about recognising what's really at play here, and it has NOTHING whatsover to do with defending one's "way of life".


----------



## Marginal (Jun 11, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I cant seem to generate a tear over a guy who chopped the head of of Mr. Pearl. A non-combatant. This guy was obviously a "combatant" operating in a theater of war we are involved in. High fives all around. Michael can send a card if he feels so inclined.


Mr. Pearl Sr. would be more likely to do so given his comments shortly after the bombing.


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 11, 2006)

jazkiljok said:
			
		

> you are writing as if these guys are cops. they are not cops. the kill in war because it's THE SITUATION. it's called war. you kill the enemy.
> 
> Zarqawi was deemed more important dead than alive when they started blowing up buildings they thought he was hiding in.



You obviously have never been in the military or know much about it.

American soldiers do not kill helpless people in cold blood if they can.

The _eliminate_ threats and degrade the enemy's ability to wage war. And this means human ability as well. Snipers have been part of warfare since rifle's were invented, targeting leaders. Because taking out a leader can be as effective as taking out an entire unit sometimes. In WWII the SAS tried to kill Rommel and the US did intercept a radio transmission and sent in a few planes to take out Admiral Yamamoto.

But when given the chance, any army will take prisoners rather than kill. Unlike police, they won't risk a lot to do so.

In this case, Al-zarqawi might have been alerted by troop movements and gotten away. And he might have fought to the death and set off a bomb that would have taken out a lot of Americans with him. That is the type of things they do. And so, in this case, it looks like the best way of making sure the target was _eliminated_ was to send in bombs. But once he was on a stretcher, he was eliminated as a threat to the US and bacame a potential prisoner. So we tried to save his life, because that is what _we_ do.

Sending the bombs in was the best, most effective way of eliminating the target under the initial circumstances. When there was a better way to take him alive, we tried to take it.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 11, 2006)

_*Second Moderator warning:

This thread will return to the original topic of conversation or it will be closed.

Please also note that ANYONE can report posts to the moderating staff if discussions veer off topic.

Thank you,

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator* _


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 12, 2006)

Some facts I read in the International Herald Tribune- which I left at work.

This was not a carefully planned operation. Al-Zarqawi, like many in his situation, changed safe houses very frequently and the military basically had word that he was where he was _right then_ with no knowledge of how long. So the strike went off as soon as the word came in.

There was no American forces within reasonable range. In these situations, you want to go in with a lot of people to secure the area and avoid another Blackhawk Down situation.

There was a jet with two 500 pound bombs in the air on patrol and was able to get there at supersonic speeds.

That was why bombs were dropped instead of ground troops trying to capture him.

Initial reports said there was a child killed. Later reports did not mention it. Today's IHT confirmed that there was a girl about 5 or 6 killed. There is speculation that it may have been al-Zarqawi's daughter. But other speculation is that he survived the initial blast because he hopped out a window and fled as soon as he heard the plane. If both stories are true, that means that he abandoned his child to try to save himself. Again, why he survived for a little while and who the girl is is merely specualtion at this point.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 12, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Some facts I read in the International Herald Tribune- which I left at work.
> 
> This was not a carefully planned operation. Al-Zarqawi, like many in his situation, changed safe houses very frequently and the military basically had word that he was where he was _right then_ with no knowledge of how long. So the strike went off as soon as the word came in.
> 
> ...


 
Dropping two 500 lb bombs with precision, with only limited non-hostile deaths, is very planned.  TF 145 (AKA TF 77) had been following a lead for weeks.  The reason they chose to go the bombing route was to insure al-Zarqawi's capture or death.  He had escaped on other occassions and they did not want to risk that situation again.  One of the times he had escaped do to the fact the restraints on the soldiers were too tight (rules of engagement).  al-Zarqawi ran a road block and soldiers were told not to fire upon the vehicle.

But as you did mention, this was also the safest route.  Why put more soldiers in harm's way when you do not have to do so.

The soldiers of TF 145 did their job, and did it well!


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 14, 2006)

Al-Zaraqawi arrives in heaven.

There he is greeted by George Washington, who proceeded to slap him across the face and yell at him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached and punched Al-Zaraqawi in the nose and shouted,"You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."

James Madison entered, kicked Al-Zaraqawi in the balls and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson came in and proceeded to beat Al-Zaraqawi many times with along cane and said, "It was evil men like you that provided me the inspiration to pen the Declaration of Independence!".

These beatings and thrashings continued as John Rudolph, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans came in and unleashed their anger on the Muslim terrorist leader.

As Al-Zaraqawi  lay bleeding and writhing in unbearable pain an Angel appeared. Al-Zaraqawi wept in pain and said to the Angel, "This is not what you promised me."

The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in heaven. What did you think I said?


----------



## Don Roley (Jun 15, 2006)

Looks like they used the info found after al-zarqawi was taken out to good use.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_raids


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 15, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Looks like they used the info found after al-zarqawi was taken out to good use.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_raids



Good thing  I've love to see al-quieda a thing of the past. As people have stated in the past, this may have been a good first step.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2006)

I didn't really want to start a new thread on this ... but a Taliban commander has been killed by a United States Airstrike in Afghanistan. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

Interesting, the news report is not reporting this Taliban leader as the 'Number Two' man. I suppose that bell has been rung too many times. 



> Osmani, regarded as one of three top associates of Omar, is the highest-ranking Taliban leader the coalition has claimed to have killed or captured since U.S. forces invaded *Afghanistan* to oust the Taliban regime in late 2001 for hosting bin Laden.


 
I still think there are some serious questions that need be reviewed about the United States Military assassinating people by airstrike in a sovereign nation. And I need to wonder about whether this leader could have been captured and charged with offenses. If not, what makes this assassination legal?


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I still think there are some serious questions that need be reviewed about the United States Military assassinating people by airstrike in a sovereign nation. And I need to wonder about whether this leader could have been captured and charged with offenses. If not, what makes this assassination legal?



Is the guy an enemy soldier? When you find enemy soldiers, the military generally tries to kill them. That just seems natural to me.

And Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and the government *wants us* to take out the Taliban in that nation. What is the point about raising that issue?

And I am sure the US would have loved to have gotten this guy alive if they could. But how many soldiers would probably have died in an attempt that only had a slim chance of getting him before he escaped.

Do you have any problem with the Americans targetting Admiral Yamato during WWII? How about the attempt on Rommel's life by the SAS in the same war? Or the way snipers take out enemy generals?


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I didn't really want to start a new thread on this ... but a Taliban commander has been killed by a United States Airstrike in Afghanistan.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061223/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
> 
> ...



are you saying that assasination is legal, but you don't know if this one qualifies or are you asking if any assasination attempt is legal?

generally speaking gerald ford in 1976 made an executive order to forbid us agencies from assasinating world leaders. but that executive order can be set aside by any president under various reasons (preemptive strike, self-defense for example-- reagan used that rationale when bombing gaddafi)

killing "terrorists" by any means has been the U.S. policy since i can remember-- certainly nixon, ford, reagan, bush sr, clinton thought it was.

technically, we're not at war with any sovereign nation-- we're supporting military operations of sovereign nations (afghannistgan, iraq) to kill or capture their enemies.

the taliban are considered enemy combatants-- why would their leaders be any less a valid target than the jihadi peasant with a AK-47?


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 23, 2006)

The debate about this type of thing should have been held over a decade ago. Back then, Clinton ordered an air strike made to try to kill Bin Laden when he was in Afghanistan. Now the goverment there wants us to commit air strikes against Taliban, but back then it was a sovereign nation opposed to us but not at war. And yet America targetted Bin Laden in a failed air strike.

If no one screamed at that time, it seems a little strange to scream now considering that we are not commiting acts of war against Afghanistan as we were back then.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 23, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> are you saying that assasination is legal, but you don't know if this one qualifies or are you asking if any assasination attempt is legal?
> 
> generally speaking gerald ford in 1976 made an executive order to forbid us agencies from assasinating world leaders. but that executive order can be set aside by any president under various reasons (preemptive strike, self-defense for example-- reagan used that rationale when bombing gaddafi)
> 
> ...


 

I am not asking if assassination is legal. Ford's executive order only covers world leaders, the second, or third, or forth in line would not be covered by Ford's order. 

You don't think there is a fuzzy line, if not a clear line, between the popularly supported Taliban as a government entity, and al Qaeda, a jihadist / terrorist organization? If we can confligrate 'terrorist' into any popularly supported leadership role, what restrictions are placed on the label 'terrorism' or 'terrorist'? 

For the moment, we do not know the combat situation around this airstrike. So, it could be that it was a combat situation: Us Guys Shooting at Them Guys and Them Guys Shooting as Us Guys. 

But I do not believe that just because an Predator drops a laser guided bomb, that we are therefore in a combat situation. If we are going to start assassinating people with the United States Military, let's have a debate about it; let's us figure out what rules and ethics by which we are going to execute these tactics. 

The fact is, the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence in Afghanistan. Are they all legitimate targets? If so, it seems to me we need to do a whole lot more killing over there. And we are going to be creating more enemies with each killing. 

A correct analogy is the Hyrda, you cut off one head, and two more grow in its place. So, we, as a country, better be damn sure of the destination.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 23, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> You don't think there is a fuzzy line, if not a clear line, between the popularly supported Taliban as a government entity, and al Qaeda, a jihadist / terrorist organization?



I do not think the Taliban is widely supported. But even so, if they are trying to kill us, does that not make them an enemy just like a soldier or terrorist? And if so, then what is wrong about trying to kill members of those trying to kill you? We kill generals by snipers in war. Are you trying to say that if we know that a Taliban general (i.e. someone who directs military operations against us) we should *not* try to eliminate them?

Sounds really warped to me.


----------



## jazkiljok (Dec 24, 2006)

> michaeledward said:
> 
> 
> > I am not asking if assassination is legal. Ford's executive order only covers world leaders, the second, or third, or forth in line would not be covered by Ford's order.
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 24, 2006)

jazkiljok said:


> the taliban were essentially a defacto partner with alqueda


 
Was the United States Government a "defacto partner" with Timothy McVeigh? or any of the White Supremisist groups, or apocolytic militias? 

The fact that these people operate within the boundaries of the United States does not make the nation guilty of their offenses; nor does it implicated that the United States believes in these peoples opinions. While I will grant you a closer connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban; tied by religious beliefs, they are not the same entity. Just the same as the United States Military is not Timothy McVeigh.

I don't ask these questions to defend the Taliban, or to say whether the Taliban are right or wrong. These questions are asked for self-examination. What our country does defines us. Our behavior will be used to measure us against history.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Was the United States Government a "defacto partner" with Timothy McVeigh? or any of the White Supremisist groups, or apocolytic militias?
> 
> The fact that these people operate within the boundaries of the United States does not make the nation guilty of their offenses; nor does it implicated that the United States believes in these peoples opinions. While I will grant you a closer connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban; tied by religious beliefs, they are not the same entity. Just the same as the United States Military is not Timothy McVeigh.



I have trouble believing that you are defending the Taliban by trying to make a loose comparison with McVeigh.

McVeigh was not the financer of the government, nor had he ever  met the leaders of the nation and advised them. And  if he had commited a crime against another nation, the US would have given him up instead of running cover for him.

If you take a look at the facts, it is clear that the Taliban and Al Queda worked hand in hand. It is not a case of criminals in a country- they worked together! They still are working together! So you can't say that they are uninvolved with people actively trying to kill us and should *not* be targets just like anyone else.

This is so strange, even by the scale I am used to for Martialtalk.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 4, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> You don't think there is a fuzzy line, if not a clear line, between the popularly supported Taliban as a government entity, and al Qaeda, a jihadist / terrorist organization? If we can confligrate 'terrorist' into any popularly supported leadership role, what restrictions are placed on the label 'terrorism' or 'terrorist'?
> 
> For the moment, we do not know the combat situation around this airstrike. So, it could be that it was a combat situation: Us Guys Shooting at Them Guys and Them Guys Shooting as Us Guys.
> 
> ...



I suppose that if you believe that the Taliban should not be shot at, then this article should cause you to be alarmed.

It seems clear to me. If they are operating in the field or somehow involved in the planning and orginization of operations to kill Americans or innocent people, then they are targets. It is the same as any enemy general. If we were to target a person in the government of Zimbabwe I could understand your concerns. But if someone is actively engaged in trying to kill us as the Taliban are, then I do not see why we should be constrained (as you seem to desire) from killing them when and wherever we can.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 4, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> I suppose that if you believe that the Taliban should not be shot at, then this article should cause you to be alarmed.
> 
> It seems clear to me. If they are operating in the field or somehow involved in the planning and orginization of operations to kill Americans or innocent people, then they are targets. It is the same as any enemy general. If we were to target a person in the government of Zimbabwe I could understand your concerns. But if *someone is actively engaged in trying to kill us *as the Taliban are, then I do not see why we should be constrained (as you seem to desire) from killing them when and wherever we can.


 
Well ... rest assured, there is no alarm here, Don Roley. No joy, no sweet smell of victory either, mind you. Perhaps, a bit of sadness, that we have come so low; celebrating the spread of peace and democracy from aircraft launched armament. 

From the article you listed, there were no reports that the actions in Musa Qala posed any threat to American Service members or even the Afghanistand allies. I guess that begs the question "what does 'actively engaged' mean? 

Dropping a bomb on a car from an airplane did nothing to assist the people of Musa Qala who were reported as being overrun by the Taliban. Quite possibly, there will be some revenge killings in the town, because of this assassination. Sure, the local General offers words about a 'surgical and deliberate' response - at some undetermined point in the future. Looking at Afghanistan and Iraq as a whole - one has to wonder about the credibility of those words. 

The article mentions no information about collateral damage. In addition to the Taliban Leader - which one? Can't be sure? maybe Abdul Gafoor, but maybe not - who else died in this strike? 

What this really seems like to me, is that someone wants to publish some 'Good News'. It may be a case of there being "No there, there". Kinda like all the stories about how our military 'Killed the #2 man' in this terrorist group. To me, it seems there are an awful lot of #2 men out there, eh?


----------



## Kreth (Feb 4, 2007)

:deadhorse


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Well ... rest assured, there is no alarm here, Don Roley. No joy, no sweet smell of victory either, mind you. Perhaps, a bit of sadness, that we have come so low; celebrating the spread of peace and democracy from aircraft launched armament.
> 
> From the article you listed, there were no reports that the actions in Musa Qala posed any threat to American Service members or even the Afghanistand allies. I guess that begs the question "what does 'actively engaged' mean?



Oh, I would think that in planning and orginizing attacks and operations that involve shooting at folks in Afghanistan covers the definition of actively engaged. I think we can be pretty sure that a Taliban commander in the field was somehow engaged in thinking about killing Americans.

I don't see anyone celebrating peace and democracy while dropping bombs. There is still a battle between the Taliban and the people that don't think stoning homosexuals to death is civilized behavior.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 5, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Oh, I would think that in planning and orginizing attacks and operations that involve shooting at folks in Afghanistan covers the definition of actively engaged.


 
Actively engaged against whom? In this supposition.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I think we can be pretty sure that a Taliban commander in the field was somehow engaged in thinking about killing Americans.


 
Just as long as we are dropping our bombs on people who are thinking bad things, eh? 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I don't see anyone celebrating peace and democracy while dropping bombs.


 
I see that article as celebratory. And, although the tone has changed significantly in recent months, much of what the President has been telling us over the past four years is how great we as a nation are, because we are spreading democracy. Bringing "The Almighty's Gift to Mankind" to others around the world. I wonder why the Almighty needs the US Military to deliver his gift? 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> There is still a battle between the Taliban and the people that don't think stoning homosexuals to death is civilized behavior.


 
And this battle should be fought by the United States military because .... ?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And this battle should be fought by the United States military because .... ?



Because the Taliban gave support, and continues to give support to the group that caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. They have made no secret of the fact of their intentions. Everyone involved in their orginization can be counted as working for their aims, and that involves attacking the US and its citizens.

This all seems obvious to me. I can't understand why anyone could think that the Taliban is blameless in the attacks of 9-11 and think they should not be hunted down when and wherever they can.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 5, 2007)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800299.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=14984


So, I am confused... Are we debating Al-Zarqawi's participation in international terrorism?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 5, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So, I am confused... Are we debating Al-Zarqawi's participation in international terrorism?



Take a look at post #116. The post prior to it was _*six months*_ earlier. From that point on it seems this thread has spread to the discussion of whether we should kill terrorists whenever we can, or wait for them to have a gun in their hand and trying to kill Americans at the time of their death.

When I saw the post about the latest death of a Taliban commander, I decided to post it here rather than wait for another post like #116.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 5, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Because the Taliban gave support, and continues to give support to the group that caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. They have made no secret of the fact of their intentions. Everyone involved in their orginization can be counted as working for their aims, and that involves attacking the US and its citizens.


 
So we are certain that *this* Taliban leader was involved in protecting al Qaeda's tactics of September 11th, 2001? The article didn't seem to say that. 

Knowing where in the hierarchy of Mullah Omar, Mr. Gafoor fell would be a useful fact to add to the article, I think. That would certainly help to explain and justify the assassination. 




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> This all seems obvious to me. I can't understand why anyone could think that the Taliban is blameless in the attacks of 9-11 and think they should not be hunted down when and wherever they can.


 
You were making the argument that we should hunt them down and kill them because they are opposed to homosexuality, weren't you? 

I don't think I put forth an argument that the Taliban is blameless in 9-11. 

To me, it does seem strange how .... "stoning homosexuals to death" and the events of 19 al Qaeda members on September 11, 2001 are blended up into one thing in your argument.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So we are certain that *this* Taliban leader was involved in protecting al Qaeda's tactics of September 11th, 2001? The article didn't seem to say that.



Well, we don't know if every German Soldier we killed in WWII was a supporter of the Nazi policies. But because they were part of the movement and orginization involved with fighting us, they were still targets.

I really do not see why we would need to capture and not kill people that willingly joined the Taliban knowing what they do about its policies and actions and then figugure out in a trial if they were part of anything like 9-11. I just can't see the logic.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 5, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Take a look at post #116. The post prior to it was _*six months*_ earlier. From that point on it seems this thread has spread to the discussion of whether we should kill terrorists whenever we can, or wait for them to have a gun in their hand and trying to kill Americans at the time of their death.
> 
> When I saw the post about the latest death of a Taliban commander, I decided to post it here rather than wait for another post like #116.


 
Ah... cool. Thanks for bringing me on the same page, because I was pretty lost otherwise.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 5, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Well, we don't know if every German Soldier we killed in WWII was a supporter of the Nazi policies. But because they were part of the movement and orginization involved with fighting us, they were still targets.


 
Did those soldiers remain targets through 1950? Were we still dropping bombs on them after we restored governance to Germany? 

Since we have returned governance of Afghanistan to the locals, and we have touted so highly their elections, one begins to wonder why we continue to carry out combat operations in a foreign soveriegn country. 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I really do not see why we would need to capture and not kill people that willingly joined the Taliban knowing what they do about its policies and actions and then figugure out in a trial if they were part of anything like 9-11. I just can't see the logic.


 
It would be best to continue to not see logic. As most of the those who were part of 9-11 were Saudi, and not Afghani, the logic leaps for continued attacks in Afghanistan are required. It seems to me that shortly after 9/11, even the criminally incompetent Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said there weren't any good targets in Afghanistan. 

But, it would seem the end result of all these rantings ... is that we are assassinating people without even being able to determine if we are shooting at the right people. But, we count it as a win anyhow.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Did those soldiers remain targets through 1950? Were we still dropping bombs on them after we restored governance to Germany?



Of course the answer is no- because there were no German soldiers shooting at us.

The Taliban has killed Americans in recent weeks. They hate us because we drove them from power. They are not going to stop coming after us and so I think we should not stop going after them.



michaeledward said:


> It would be best to continue to not see logic



Oh what a nice personal attack! Be assured that I will not lower myself to that level as I have tried to follow the instructions of the moderators.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Oh what a nice personal attack! Be assured that I will not lower myself to that level as I have tried to follow the instructions of the moderators.


 
It was not a personal attack. It was a re-iteration of your statement. You said ... 


> I really do not see why we would need to capture and not kill people that willingly joined the Taliban knowing what they do about its policies and actions and then figugure out in a trial if they were part of anything like 9-11. *I just can't see the logic.*


 
The technique used is called 'feedback'; where in I feed back to you the words you spoke, to confirm that we are in agreement about what you said. 

Now, if you don't want to 'lower yourself', perhaps you would wish to address the point; which was, that the majority of the attackers on September 11th, 2001 were Saudi descent, as opposed to Afghani.

One arguement you make is that the 'Taliban' are shooting at us, still. The counter argument is that we are an occupying force in their country. It woudl seem to me, based on our actions, we have become the 'muscle' for the new strongman leader we have put in place. 

As Saddam had his Fedayeen, so does Karzai have the NATO forces; so does Maliki have President Bush's Surge.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Now, if you don't want to 'lower yourself', perhaps you would wish to address the point; which was, that the majority of the attackers on September 11th, 2001 were Saudi descent, as opposed to Afghani.
> 
> One arguement you make is that the 'Taliban' are shooting at us, still. The counter argument is that we are an occupying force in their country. It woudl seem to me, based on our actions, we have become the 'muscle' for the new strongman leader we have put in place.



But of course, there is a reason why we knocked the Taliban out of power and put a new government in place. It had to do with them supporting and shielding the guys that killed thousands of our citizens. And we kind of do not want them to come back and be able to repeat that, eh?

The Saudi Arabian government is hardly working as the Taliban are to kill us. They are doing things that we do not like. But we are working with them and they have made changes. We want more.

Perhaps we should talk about the Taliban instead of trying to bring in red herrings, eh? If I read this all correct, you think that we were wrong to attack the Taliban even though they would not let us go after Al Queda that they had been sheltering. Now you say you feel sad when you hear about one of their commanders getting killed. What exactly makes you think that they are not terrorists and valid targets? I really do not see your logic.

(BTW- that is of course what I meant when I said "I just can't see the logic" and not that I am unable to see logic as you implied with your response of "It would be best to continue to not see logic". I do not see how you can make the conclusions you make and remain logical. If you could explain it so that we all can understand it without insults, perhaps we can have a valid discussion, eh?)


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Perhaps we should talk about the Taliban instead of trying to bring in red herrings, eh? *If I read this all correct*, you think that we were wrong to attack the Taliban even though they would not let us go after Al Queda that they had been sheltering. Now _you say you feel sad_ when you hear about one of their commanders getting killed. What exactly makes you think that they are not terrorists and valid targets? I really do not see your logic.


 
I would posit that you are reading this incorrect. 

I am fairly certain that I made no statements in this thread concerning the invasion of Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001. 



And, I will remind you of the words I used:



> Perhaps, a bit of sadness, that we have come so low


 
The sadness that I feel is about the plural pronoun 'we' in that sentence. The unmentioned anticedent in that sentence is the American population. I mentioned, I believe, no emotional impact concerning the assassination of Mr. Gafoor.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I would posit that you are reading this incorrect.
> 
> I am fairly certain that I made no statements in this thread concerning the invasion of Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001.



Well, you have not said one way if you thought it was good or bad. But you did make this statement.



> Was the United States Government a "defacto partner" with Timothy McVeigh? or any of the White Supremisist groups, or apocolytic militias?
> 
> The fact that these people operate within the boundaries of the United States does not make the nation guilty of their offenses; nor does it implicated that the United States believes in these peoples opinions. While I will grant you a closer connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban; tied by religious beliefs, they are not the same entity. Just the same as the United States Military is not Timothy McVeigh.



Of course, the Taliban were more to Osama and Al Queda than Timothy McVeigh was. They gave support and shelter to them and ran interference for them when we wanted them. They were partners as everyone knows and yet you seem to try to present it as if they had nothing more to do with Osama Bin Laden than McVeigh did with our government.

And you have not said that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified or needed, even in your last post. So you can see how in the light of your arguments and your avoiding a clear statement about the matter, some of us have come away with the impression that you think the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. Is that the case? Perhaps we can shed some of the possible misunderstanding if you give a clear outline of what you think and why.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> So you can see how in the light of your arguments and your avoiding a clear statement about the matter, some of us have come away with the impression that you think the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. Is that the case? Perhaps we can shed some of the possible misunderstanding if you give a clear outline of what you think and why.


 

You are correct, I have made no comments on that topic. (at least I hope I have not made any comments on the Afghanistan invasion of October, November & December 2001. 

I do not see how one can logically draw a conclusion that is outside the scope of the discussion -  -  but, if you feel strongly about drawing a conclusion based on the absence of evidence, please do so. But, recognize that it is your impression ... you draw it, you hold it, you own it.

Do I believe "the invasion of Aghanistan was wrong"? - No.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 6, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Do I believe "the invasion of Aghanistan was wrong"? - No.



Ok, so maybe you can explain why you think it is wrong for American soldiers to kill Taliban whenever and whereever they can.

You said earlier,



> But, it would seem the end result of all these rantings ... is that we are assassinating people without even being able to determine if we are shooting at the right people



By "right" you seem to mean that the Taliban might not be valid enemies now.

But they ahve not ceased their war against us. They have not given up. When you asked if we were still shooting German soldiers in 1950 you did not mention that all German soldiers were told to put down their arms and surrender. When hostilities end, either by victory or a peace agreement, then we should stop killing the other guy.

But the Taliban have not ceased their war against us. They will not stop trying to kill us. They have not ordered their soldiers to lay down their arms or even tried to negotiate with us to come to terms. There is no change in their tone or position from when they were in power in Afghanistan.

So I really do not see any problem with killing anyone that is part of their orginization as long as they have not given up trying to kill us. Strange that I think that people engaged in trying to kill us should be killed instead. But many have commented on why you think it is a bad thing to kill any Taliban we can before they get a chance to do the same to us. Maybe you can explain and clear up the matter.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Ok, so maybe you can explain why you think it is wrong for American soldiers to kill Taliban whenever and whereever they can.


 
The Taliban that were running the state of Afghanistan were removed from power. The Taliban are no longer running the the country of Afghanistan. The Taliban are no longer responsible for giving shelter to Osama bin Laden and his organization. We have supported (installed?) a new government in the nation of Afghanistan. That government was democratically elected. 

These generally are considered marking posts on the end of a war. As the 'war' has ended, the Taliban is no longer a legitimate target of war. The criminal elements in the country are the resposibility of the new government. 

Continuing to use military force in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan is, as I see, based on one of two motivations ... 1) a criminal violation of sovereign territory or 2) the function of muscle in a totalitarian regime.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 6, 2007)

So we should pull out of Germany, Japan? No because it does not fit in to todays liberal hype. We have ocupied EVERY nation we have fought in. Why is this a suprise?

And Global warming sure is cold.........


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2007)

jetboatdeath said:


> So we should pull out of Germany, Japan? No because it does not fit in to todays liberal hype. We have ocupied EVERY nation we have fought in. Why is this a suprise?
> 
> And Global warming sure is cold.........


 
Kind of strange how you answer your own question. 

But, if you were asking *me*, and there is little evidence that you were, of course we should remove all military forces from Germany. We should remove all military forces from Japan. 

We should also disolve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as the purpose was to defend Western Europe from a Soviet Block invasion. That threat seems to have vanished. 

Additionally, we should remove all 'forward' bases. 

They project only empire. And not a very attractive empire, at that.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 6, 2007)

You have no idea what you are speaking of (oh I am sure you think you do and can supply many links to prove it)
And I am sure that West Point would bask (and by bask I mean laugh) at your brilliant plan. How ever if you think that Russia is no longer a threat well you killed your own argument. 
Man what fun it must be to live in your own little world.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2007)

jetboatdeath said:


> You have no idea what you are speaking of (oh I am sure you think you do and can supply many links to prove it)
> And I am sure that West Point would bask (and by bask I mean laugh) at your brilliant plan. How ever if you think that Russia is no longer a threat well you killed your own argument.
> Man what fun it must be to live in your own little world.


 
By the way, Welcome. If you wish to have a discussion, you'll find I am not shy. If you just wish to be condescending to my opinion, just let me know now, so I can act appropriately.

I will point out that 

a) I am speaking of my own opinion and I promise you that I do know what my opinion is.

b) I present no plan, brilliant or fool hardy, for review by West Point. I presented an opinion. 

c) There is a difference between 'Russia' and the 'Soviet Block'. What little threat Russia might pose, it no longer is directed at Western Europe. And to get to Western Europe with whatever threat it might muster, Russia would have to move its military through Eastern Europe.

I will also add, threats and beliefs do not kill arguments. Arguments are won and lost in ideas. So, if you wish, why don't you pick one of your arguements, and start a new thread. And then we can see what ideas can be brought to bear on suppositions.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The Taliban that were running the state of Afghanistan were removed from power. The Taliban are no longer running the the country of Afghanistan. The Taliban are no longer responsible for giving shelter to Osama bin Laden and his organization. We have supported (installed?) a new government in the nation of Afghanistan. That government was democratically elected.
> 
> These generally are considered marking posts on the end of a war. As the 'war' has ended, the Taliban is no longer a legitimate target of war. The criminal elements in the country are the resposibility of the new government.
> 
> Continuing to use military force in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan is, as I see, based on one of two motivations ... 1) a criminal violation of sovereign territory or 2) the function of muscle in a totalitarian regime.



That is all very unusual. The Taliban that ran Afghanistan is still run by the same leadership, so you calling a different one is not correct.

The war is not ended. The folks that want to kill us are still trying to. It seems that the logical thing is to search them out and deal with them as long as that is the case. The legitimate government of Afghanistand wants us to engage the Taliban in their country, so your talk of breaking their sovereign territory is without the slightest bit of merit. Even your comment on the new government as a "totalitarian regime" strikes me as the words of someone out of step with the rest of the world.

As I said, I do not follow the logic you are relying on. It does not seem consistant. Is helping a government that requests help breaking thier sovereignity? If so, how can we be in any oversea base? And since the Taliban is still gunning for us, any member of theirs is a legitimate target. We will capture and kill them whenever we get the chance. They are still close to Osama Bin Laden as well, so that is another factor as well.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> That is all very unusual. The Taliban that ran Afghanistan is still run by the same leadership, so you calling a different one is not correct.
> 
> The war is not ended. The *folks* that want to kill us are still trying to. It seems that the logical thing is to search them out and deal with them as long as that is the case. The legitimate government of Afghanistand wants us to engage the Taliban in their country, so your talk of breaking their sovereign territory is without the slightest bit of merit. Even your comment on the new government as a "totalitarian regime" strikes me as the words of someone out of step with the rest of the world.
> 
> As I said, I do not follow the logic you are relying on. It does not seem consistant. Is helping a government that requests help breaking thier sovereignity? If so, how can we be in any oversea base? And since the Taliban is still gunning for us, any member of theirs is a legitimate target. We will capture and kill them whenever we get the chance. They are still close to Osama Bin Laden as well, so that is another factor as well.


 
One does not go to war with "folks". Wars are fought between Nation States. 

Assuming there are "folks" that wish the American people ill will, and have the capacity to act upon it, it does not follow that the correct tool with which to persue those 'folks' is the United States Military. 

If a sovereign government requests our military assistance to put down the minority or dissident group in their country, do we always oblige? Do we oblige with military strikes? How close must the connections be between the leadership of the United States and the foreign nation for the United States to act at their request? to act with military force?

At what point does the responsibility of the people and territory of Afghanistan transfer from the United States Military to the native populace? If that transfer never takes place, and all of President Karzai's policing falls to the United States or NATO, is it a sovereign nation, at all? Or is he just a puppet? 

~ ~  The parting on the left, is now a parting on the right  ~ ~ 
~ ~  and their beards have all grown longer, overnight. ~ ~


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> One does not go to war with "folks". Wars are fought between Nation States.



Tell that to the Taliban. They have declared war on us even though they are not a nation state. Of for that matter, Osama himself.

I consider anyone trying to kill Americans to be at war with us. And  as long as they are operating under the  assumption that they can kill us even though they are not a nation state, I see no problem with using the best (i.e. the military) we have to do the same to them. So I really do not see the problems you have with us killing members  of orginizations devoted to our destruction. I just rather would prefer we kill them before they get a chance to kill innocent Americans.

I mean, take a look at this interview with the guy who is the head of the Taliban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1657368.stm

And look at some of these quotes.



> But the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America.





> This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it [America] will fall to the ground.



Looking at that, can you honestly say that you do not think that we should be using everything we have to deprive them of the chance to bring about those goals?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Tell that to the Taliban. They have declared war on us even though they are not a nation state. Of for that matter, Osama himself.


 
Osama bin Laden is an insignifcant homeless man living in a cave. The Taliban are a movement without a country. By reacting to either, in any way, we validate them and their positions. 





			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I consider anyone trying to kill Americans to be at war with us. And as long as they are operating under the assumption that they can kill us even though they are not a nation state, I see no problem with using the best (i.e. the military) we have to do the same to them. So I really do not see the problems you have with us killing members of orginizations devoted to our destruction. I just rather would prefer we kill them before they get a chance to kill innocent Americans.


 
Why then, do we not use the United States Military against the gangs of New York and Los Angeles? Don't they try to kill Americans regularly? 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I mean, take a look at this interview with the guy who is the head of the Taliban.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1657368.stm
> 
> And look at some of these quotes.


 
I wonder why we don't have any quotes more current than November 2001? And, I love how we ignore the statement about the task being "beyond the will ... of human beings." Doesn't that mean it is impossible for him and his organization to complete? 

He is an insignificant man, using fear of 'The Other' to solidify his political standing with his 'Base'. It is a tactic used by weak leaders everywhere. 

Have you heard that the Anti-Defimation League reports the KKK membership is growing all across America; based on the rhetoric concerning 'Illegal Immigrants"? 




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Looking at that, can you honestly say that you do not think that we should be using everything we have to deprive them of the chance to bring about those goals?


 
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail. 

I can honestly say using 'everything we have' is a fools errand. We should analyze the problem and use an effective tool for the scope of the problem.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2007)

JeffJ ... it is not an argument about semantics. 

It is an argument about recongnizing the nature of the threat, and responding in a credible, appropriate and realistic nature to the threat.

Really, we are dropping bombs from F-16's on homeless people. Sure, they are homeless people with guns, but, they are homeless, and countryless. 

If you wish to disagree, and argue another point of view, please join us here.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Osama bin Laden is an insignifcant homeless man living in a cave. The Taliban are a movement without a country. By reacting to either, in any way, we validate them and their positions.



So, despite the thousands they have killed, and are continiuing to try to kill, you would have us do _nothing_ to them? You would not have us try to stop them before they do so again? You threw in a lot of red herrings about KKK and gangs, but your basic message seems to be that we should not do anything about them and especially not use military force.

Let me see if I get the logic you use.

-You say that we can't have wars with anything other than nation states. Osama and the Taliban are not- so we can't have a war with them.

-you believe we should only use the military in wars.

-you believe that the military can't operate in another country against an enemy even if the local government wants us to.

So, looking at all of the above- you seem to be saying that we can't go after Osama Bin Laden unless he is in America itself and can't send out military after him.

If there is an error in the above, please illustrate it. But just based on what you have written in this thread, I think your views are quite outside what the vast majority believe. Osama and the head of the Taliban have declared war on the US and have not changed that position. I, for one, think we should fight them in the best way possible before they have a chance to kill anyone else. You feel differently it seems.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> JeffJ ... it is not an argument about semantics.
> 
> It is an argument about recongnizing the nature of the threat, and responding in a credible, appropriate and realistic nature to the threat.
> 
> ...


Well Mr. Edwards, I really don't feel the need to participate in the debate here as anything I would like to say has already been said.  It just seems to me you used a comon debating tatctic in focusing on the use of the word folks when it was obvious that Mr. Roley was referring to the Taliban at that time which is a political/religious organization that has declared war on the United States.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> Well Mr. Edwards, I really don't feel the need to participate in the debate here as anything I would like to say has already been said. It just seems to me you used a comon debating tatctic in focusing on the use of the word folks when it was obvious that Mr. Roley was referring to the Taliban at that time which is a political/religious organization that has declared war on the United States.
> 
> Jeff


 
Thank you for bringing your points here. 

I know very little about common debating tactics. So, I'll take your word for it that repeating Mr. Roley's word fits into that category. Mr Roley was talking about 'folks', so I take him at his word, and, as a matter of fact, I agree with him.  

If he was referring to the Taliban, I would (and did) point out that that particular leadership organization lost a war in 2001. What remnents of the organization may remain are insignificant. The United States won that war. I don't think we did a very good job finishing it. But we won. The structures that were in place that sheltered al Qaeda were eliminated. Whatever is left of that organization can accurately be described as 'folks', or 'criminals', or 'insurgents', or 'homeless losers'. 

To launch the full force of the United States military at the 'Taliban', or what is left of them, seems to me to be an very inappropriate tool to accomplish the goal. 

JDAM's just don't seem to be the best choice of weaponry when wishing to assassinate the 'folks'.

There are Neo-Nazis in the world today, but they too, are considered insignificant. We do not continue warring with them because they hold to the ideas and principles of the Third Riech, even though we fought a war against those ideas not so very long ago.

Lastly, I would be very careful, however, when mentioning the word 'war' and 'religious organization' in the same sentence. It would seem to me that any confligration of those terms would be seriously detrimental to any foreign relationship or policy. It would seem unwise to suggest in even the most cursory manner that we are at war with Islam.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> michaeledward said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I am wondering if it is a 'red herring' to take one sentence of a post, and quote it, without quoting the full measure of the response. ~~ don't know ~~


Don Roley ... Let's start here: _So, despite the thousands they have killed, and are continiuing to try to kill, you would have us do nothing to them?_​
Please define the anticedent of the pronoun 'they'. I thought we were talking about the Taliban. Please tell me who 'they' / the Taliban killed. Who are they continuing to tray and kill? _You would not have us try to stop them before they do so again?_​Again, it is not clear who you think 'they' are, but, I believe that before we discuss our actions - stopping them before they do so again - we need to assess the credibility of the threat. The Taliban have not ability to strike at the United States. Zip Nada Zero. 

I would have us monitor the possibilities of credible threats. There is no credible threat. 

The so-called red herrings ... KKK activity and gang activity ... referenced were brought up to demonstrate the result of behavior that paints 'The Other' as an enemy. The fear engendered by say 'THEY' all the time, spawns hate filled groups like the KKK and the gangs on the streets of L.A. 


It really should not be a terribly difficult analogy to understand. On the SAT's it might read like this :Illegal Immigrants are to the Ku Klux Klan as​
"They" are to _________________.​Illegal immigrants have become a recruiting tool for the KKK. 

"They" (still not sure who you mean) are to .... what? Republicans? Conservatives? _-You say that we can't have wars with anything other than nation states. Osama and the Taliban are not- so we can't have a war with them._​ 

_-you believe we should only use the military in wars._​ 

_-you believe that the military can't operate in another country against an enemy even if the local government wants us to._​ 
Wars are fought between Nation States, or City States or groups of these. This is not so because "I say" so. It is so because that is the definition of war. I understand you may not like that. But countries don't wage war on individuals. Countries wage war on other countries. We are not currently having a conversation about invading President Ahmedinejad. There is a conversation going on about invading Iran. 

So, on both of the two bullet points, you are correct. The Taliban, at one point were the representation of the Nation State of Afghanistan. We went to war against them. We won. They lost. They are no longer representative of a Nation State. We can no longer fight a war with them. 

As for use of United States military power in other countries ... I believe there should be a very high threshold that must be met before we start using our military in such a manner. The risks of using military power at the behest of a friendly government are exceedingly high. This demands that the rewards of undertaking those risks must be similarly lofty. If we were to undertake an action, I believe the objectives must be clear and definative, with an end in sight before we even begin. In both Afghanistand and Iraq, I think we have not successfully addressed that risk/reward matrix. Which may explain the President's 30% approval rating. 

EDIT --- If you can listen through to the end of this story, I believe you can hear the dilemma in using military force in other countries ... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7244125 -END EDIT


So, on your third bullet point, I would not make that claim as 100% accurate ... but it certainly is closer to the mark than away from it. _So, looking at all of the above- you seem to be saying that we can't go after Osama Bin Laden unless he is in America itself and can't send out military after him._​I don't understand where you see a claim that we can't "go after Osama bin Laden"? I don't think I said that. I think that I have said, repeatedly, that the United States Military is an incorrect tool to go after one man. You know, like dropping 500 pounds of high explosives on a car carrying Mullah Gafoor. 

I'm wondering if you feel the only way we can 'go after' anyone is with the military ~ that seems to be what you are suggesting. Should we eliminate the Central Intelligence Agency, then?

_If there is an error in the above, please illustrate it. But just based on what you have written in this thread, I think your views are quite outside what the vast majority believe. Osama and the head of the Taliban have declared war on the US and have not changed that position. I, for one, think we should fight them in the best way possible before they have a chance to kill anyone else. You feel differently it seems._​What the 'vast majority' believe is absolutely irrelevant. I am not seeking election - which would only require a majority of one - or 5 if they are members of the Supreme Court.

What Osama bin Laden, or Mullah Omar declare is ridiculous, and should be treated as such. Every day, in every major city in American, someone 'declares' the world is going to end tomorrow. I'm not certain that the two thugs you reference deserve any more credence that we extend to the placard carrying doomsayers. 

Lest you misunderstand, I don't think that these knuckleheads should be able to travel freely around the world. And if one or the other died by an assassins bullet, I wouldn't feel sorry. If they were captured and put in jail for the rest of their natural lives, it wouldn't bother me. 

But the United States Military is spending two billion dollars a week to capture or kill these losers. They are the proximate cause for our current military adventures. And I am in no way certain they are worth what we're paying.



My apologies for the length of this post. In order to properly address the questions, I felt I needed to responde to direct quotes. Props to anyone who made it this far.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Thank you for bringing your points here.
> 
> I know very little about common debating tactics. So, I'll take your word for it that repeating Mr. Roley's word fits into that category. Mr Roley was talking about 'folks', so I take him at his word, and, as a matter of fact, I agree with him.
> 
> ...


Thank you for you reply.  I do agree to say we are at war with all of Islam wouln't be a good idea or correct.  But to ignore the motivations that come from the Talibans perverted ideas about Islam would be a mistake.

The difference between the Taliban and the Neo Nazis is the the morons in the Neo Nazi movement aren't quite as stupid as the Taliban leadership in trying to confront U.S. forces on the battlefield, as they are doing. 

As far as the Taliban being insignificant, to a point I agree.  They themselves are not a serious threat to our national security.  However, they do screen the AQ, have protected and assisted them in the past and are currently terrorizing many innocent Afgahnis, who after the invasion, we are at the very least partly responsible for their security. 

On a different note, whether or not the right weapon was used is a call made by men on the ground.  We, as non-combatants without all the tactical information, really can't judge the reasoning behind that choice.  Maybe it would have been a better idea to try to capture him, but we don't have all the facts at our disposal, and the commander who ordered it probably didn't have them either, and probably never will have all the information about the situation.

One more point before I finish.  The UN has come out saying that firearms should only be in the hands of nations and certain political groups.  When that body made that statement, they didn't name any particular political entities.  If large political entities are allowed to arm themselves as a nation state, then it follows we can wage war against them.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> As far as the Taliban being insignificant, to a point I agree. They themselves are not a serious threat to our national security. However, they do screen the AQ, have protected and assisted them in the past and are currently terrorizing many innocent Afgahnis, who after the invasion, we are at the very least partly responsible for their security.
> 
> On a different note, whether or not the right weapon was used is a call made by men on the ground. We, as non-combatants without all the tactical information, really can't judge the reasoning behind that choice. Maybe it would have been a better idea to try to capture him, but we don't have all the facts at our disposal, and the commander who ordered it probably didn't have them either, and probably never will have all the information about the situation.


 
Just a few thoughts here, I think. 

The Taliban are no longer providing protection for al Qaeda. For having provided protection and support for them in the past, the United States has routed them as a political force.

There was a time when the United States military had a great deal of responsibility for the people of Afghanistan ~ and Iraq, incidentally ~. There are legal and moral obligations an invading army assumes with its invasion. However, we have returned 'sovereignty' (such as it is) to Afghanistan. At that point, all responsibility moves to the local government. I believe the United States can offer support, economically, and politically. But once that transfer of authority has changed hands, military options really should be scaled back to, almost, invisible. 


To the military commanders on the ground ~ of course they made the best decision available to them at the time. It is my premise that those military commanders should not be there to make the decision. 

This decision was to perform an assassination. I have to imagine there is a distinction between combat operations and assassination, even if the end results are the same. Maybe I'm wrong about that - I guess I just hope that our soldiers are not being trained to be assassins.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 7, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Just a few thoughts here, I think.
> 
> The Taliban are no longer providing protection for al Qaeda. For having provided protection and support for them in the past, the United States has routed them as a political force.
> 
> ...


In a lesser way they still are providing protection for AQ, even if that is not there intention.  They are providing a screening force.  It's hard to conduct searches for AQ members when there is an armed force in the way.

As far as the difference between a combat operation and an assassination, it basically comes down to this.  Is the person a combatant?  Is the person supplying direct or indirect support to the forces that are confronting you?  Even if the person is a politico, if he is involved with that groups forces, such as funding, supply, or in a direct role with it, he is a combat target.  Taking out leadership is a tried and true way of lessening the effectiveness of opposing forces.

Whether or not our security role there is done is hard to say.  Personally, I think we should keep it up for a couple of reasons. For one, it puts our personel in the areas the Afgahni army probably wouldn't have the ablility to cover, thus keeping the influence of the Taliban possibly AQ out of those regions.  Secondly, I feel that our responsibility goes a bit further than you seem too.  Let us break the ability of the Taliban to field a threatening force before we leave.

Jeff


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The Taliban have not ability to strike at the United States. Zip Nada Zero.



You might have tried to make this argument September 10th, 2001. But then 19 guys with box cutters proved to the world that they could.

Jeff has dealt with a lot of the points I would have. The Taliban was a partner with the guys that killed thousands of Americans. They have not changed their outlook. If you believe so, please post some sort of counter to the words of their leader I have posted. They are still partners as far as we know and it is reasonable to assume that they still work together for their mutual benefitand goals. If there were proof to the latter, I would like to see it.

The government of Afghanistan is asking for our help to defeat them. It is in our interests to do so. I assume you would have us just sit back and let the Taliban defeat the government of Karzai and come back into power.

I also would think that your do not believe that the Iraq war is a drain on the hunt for the real terrorists. I do not know if you have made that claim in the past, but I am reasonably sure that when others have said so you have not countered them. I think this thread has helped illustrate your belief that we should turn the military operations totally over to the locals and leave the hunt for Osama to the nations that he is in.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 8, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> In a lesser way they still are providing protection for AQ, even if that is not there intention. They are providing a screening force. It's hard to conduct searches for AQ members when there is an armed force in the way.
> 
> As far as the difference between a combat operation and an assassination, it basically comes down to this. Is the person a combatant? Is the person supplying direct or indirect support to the forces that are confronting you? Even if the person is a politico, if he is involved with that groups forces, such as funding, supply, or in a direct role with it, he is a combat target. Taking out leadership is a tried and true way of lessening the effectiveness of opposing forces.
> 
> ...


 
So true, and I think some on the Left are forgetting that the Taliban (our enemies in Afghanistan) supported and sheltered Al-Quaeda (and continues to do so). Given the fact that AQ launched the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, the Taliban's support constituted (and still does) and ACT OF WAR. Period. Comparisons between the Iraq War justifications and the Afghan War are false, IMO. What American, IMO, COULDN'T support military action against AQ and their Taliban supporters?

As to Zarqawi? He's one of those fiends from Hell who purposely fomented Civil War conditions within Iraq in pursuit of his own evil ends. No, I wasn't for the Iraq War (no surprise to those who've read my Study posts on the subject), but I think that, as the expression goes... "His soul was required in Hell" - and that is where he now is, IMO.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> You might have tried to make this argument September 10th, 2001. But then 19 guys with box cutters proved to the world that they could.


 
And, the next time a terrorist attack strikes, there will be little in the way of military force that can stop it. Terrorist attacks are 'sucker punches', and can not be defended against with brute force. Other tools are required.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Jeff has dealt with a lot of the points I would have. The Taliban was a partner with the guys that killed thousands of Americans. They have not changed their outlook. If you believe so, please post some sort of counter to the words of their leader I have posted. They are still partners as far as we know and it is reasonable to assume that they still work together for their mutual benefitand goals. If there were proof to the latter, I would like to see it.


 
Whether their 'outloook' has changed or not, the capacity to act on their outlook has been significantly reduced. I believe at this time it has been reduced to the point where the cost benefit analysis indicates we should stop.



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> The government of Afghanistan is asking for our help to defeat them. It is in our interests to do so. I assume you would have us just sit back and let the Taliban defeat the government of Karzai and come back into power.


 
So, The United States set up an ineffectual government in Afghanistan, after we invaded and removed the old, government (which apparently was effective for the governed). Now that government, which we installed, is dependent upon our military to keep the peace. How convenient for us. 

Does not this define the very essence of a puppet regime? 





			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I also would think that your do not believe that the Iraq war is a drain on the hunt for the real terrorists. I do not know if you have made that claim in the past, but I am reasonably sure that when others have said so you have not countered them. I think this thread has helped illustrate your belief that we should turn the military operations totally over to the locals and leave the hunt for Osama to the nations that he is in.


 
Well, I do think it was very good that our military was able to go into Iraq and find and elminate all those Weapons of Mass Destruction. We knew they were located around Baghdad, to the East, and South, and North and West of the city. We also did a wonderful thing by stopping all the torture that was carried about by Uday and Qusay in the Iraqi prisions. And how we brougth peaceful co-existance to different religious sects that occupy Iraq. As I recall, they had been fighting each other for thirteen or fourteen hundred years. And we were able to stop all that. And what a great accomplishment, to have Parlimentary elections in Iraq, with victors such as Muqtada al Sadr, now holding critical seats in the Iraqi Parliment. Without al Sadr, and the support he receives in Sadr City (named for his father), Prime Minister Maliki would not be able to authorize the Iraqi military to set up the checkpoints required for President Bush's Surge. I suppose, it's nice that we have driven bin Laden and his closest friends out of the safe houses that President Hussein provided them in Iraq. And Lastly, although I am opposed to the death penalty, watching a young democracy take up the issue of capital punishment with appropriate somberness while executing the former leader was almost an inspiration. 


Oh, damn ... it wasn't the United States military that did any of those things, was it? Best intentions, though, right?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> In a lesser way they still are providing protection for AQ, even if that is not there intention. They are providing a screening force. It's hard to conduct searches for AQ members when there is an armed force in the way.


 
Jeff, I would love to learn more about what you propose here.

To suggest that the Taliban is a 'screening force' suggests that they are an organized beyond any measure I have heard about. 

Or do you mean they behave as the mosquitoes; irritating enough to slow us down to scratch? And because we are scratching, we can't be looking for al Qaeda. If that is the case, can't the commanders just ignore the itch? 

Are the Taliban, as they are today, are an 'armed force'? Or are they just a bunch of thugs with guns and jeeps.  Is there a command structure? Is there a communication structure? Are their military bases? Is their organized actions among geographically disparate groups? 

I don't believe the Taliban are guerillas similiar to what is fighting in Iraq today ... they can't just slip away and disappear into the local population.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Jeff, I would love to learn more about what you propose here.
> 
> To suggest that the Taliban is a 'screening force' suggests that they are an organized beyond any measure I have heard about.
> 
> ...


They do have some organization and fairly effective CCC (command, control, and communications).  In fact they are gearing up for a pretty strong offensive come spring.  Their bases are the villages in the territory they more or less occupy at the moment.  Some allow them voluntarily, while others are coerced.

As far as them being able to blend in, they might be able too, especially in the villages that support them.

I think this spring offensive they seem to be gearing up for is a good thing.  Hopefully our forces will be able to crush them into total ineffectiveness.

Jeff


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And, the next time a terrorist attack strikes, there will be little in the way of military force that can stop it.



Of course, doing nothing until they do certainly will not help. Finding them and taking them out might just help. The military seems to be the right tool for that- among others. Of all the talk of overkill you want to point to, I have never known someone to survive because they were shot _too many_ times. As long as we employ other means as well, I think we should use the military when armed force is needed overseas. I do not see how it would hurt- but you seem to think that we should do nothing when you shift through all the red herrings about Iraq and such.

Honestly, can you please stop trying to divert attention to other matters such as the supreme court and Iraq, etc and just try to convince us why we should let the Taliban come back into power and not use the military against Al Queada?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Of course, doing nothing until they do certainly will not help. Finding them and taking them out might just help. The military seems to be the right tool for that- among others. Of all the talk of overkill you want to point to, I have never known someone to survive because they were shot _too many_ times. As long as we employ other means as well, I think we should use the military when armed force is needed overseas. I do not see how it would hurt- but you seem to think that we should do nothing when you shift through all the red herrings about Iraq and such.
> 
> Honestly, can you please stop trying to divert attention to other matters such as the supreme court and Iraq, etc and just try to convince us why we should let the Taliban come back into power and not use the military against Al Queada?


 
It seems so odd, that you only quote portions of my arguments, then decry 'red herrings'. If you can't follow my arguements, please ask, I will be glad to connect the dots. But you seem to not want the dots connected.  ... and you were the one claiming to be able to follow logic. 
_The military seems to be the right tool for that- among others._​This seems to be our primary disagreement. I believe the military is an ineffective tool for a man hunt; be the hunt for Osame bin Laden, or Mullah Omar. I have never advocated the abandonment of the 'others' you mention.
_I think we should use the military when armed force is needed overseas. I do not see how it would hurt_​Your inability to observe the damage to American standing in the world because of an ineffective use of military force does not negate that damage. Further, when there are 15 or more combat bridgades in Iraq severely restricts the ability to respond to threats elsewhere in the world. And the damage being inflicted to the American economy at a rate of two billion dollars a week is not insignificant.

_can you please stop trying to divert attention to other matters such as the supreme court and Iraq, etc and just try to convince us why we should let the Taliban come back into power and not use the military against Al Queada_​I'm wondering if you can ask a single question ... compound questions such as this demand through and complicated answers ... which you then decry as 'red herrings'. 

I thought one of the principles of the American ideal was that the people have the right to self-determination. If the Afghanis who are members of the Taliban assume power and provide for the people, who are we to impose our will upon them. Again, the words - Puppet Regime - come to mind. We have become the muscle to Karzai's figurehead.

And the military is, at this point an ineffective weapon against al Qaeda because al Qaeda has no centralized command or communication, are not located in a single geographic territory which can be captured. Use of the military force increases hostile feelings toward America among non-allied indiginous personnel. Military Force functions as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> They do have some organization and fairly effective CCC (command, control, and communications). In fact they are gearing up for a pretty strong offensive come spring. Their bases are the villages in the territory they more or less occupy at the moment. Some allow them voluntarily, while others are coerced.
> 
> As far as them being able to blend in, they might be able too, especially in the villages that support them.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps you know why the military is targeting individuals in Jeeps rather than those command, control and communications centers?  

I have heard noise about the 'major spring offensive' for some time now .... it begs the question, why is the military waiting for the attack? 

You say, that we know where they are. We know from where their command is organizing and operating. We know they are planning to attack. We have weapons and intelligence gathering tools that can strike anywhere in the world under any weather condition. 

And we are going to sit back and wait for them to launch an offensive? 

Something doesn't seem right about that.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Perhaps you know why the military is targeting individuals in Jeeps rather than those command, control and communications centers?
> 
> I have heard noise about the 'major spring offensive' for some time now .... it begs the question, why is the military waiting for the attack?
> 
> ...


Well, it's possible the man that was taken out was part of their CCC.  Also, remember, a lot of the operations that happen we'll never hear about.  Not a lot of embedded reporters going down range with the SF and SEAL operators.  In many cases they won't report the successes they have so the enemy can't learn about their methods. 

As far as waiting for their offensive, it's often quite easier and safer to allow someone to start an offensive.  While mobile, they will be easier to spot and if they do manage to get to their OBJs, they'll run into dug in and readied troops.  We can easily use the terrain and air power to funnel them to great killing zones.


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 8, 2007)

not sure if this is understood. currently the afghan conflict is under the command of NATO. Operations by NATO members including Canada, the UK, Australia as well as the USA. it seems that everyone here thinks that the USA is the only force there in military operations and peacekeeping missions.


Alqueda is still a loose affiliation when it comes to their designation in Afghanistan. mostly it means foreign fighters but even that is sometimes blurry with many region clans/tribes from neighboring countries having some cross over connection to afghan tribes thru years of nomadic traditions.

i'm not sure how much money is really being invested in targetting osama by himself.  it doesn't seem to be strategically that important-- i actually believe that our gov't policy is more interested in destroying the organization's bank and killing off key members who actually make the bombs that are employed in their terror campaigns. osama would become a martyr if/when he is killed-- not really necessary-- if he's isolated and kept from public view-- he may well just fizzle out as a lightning rod for islamic extremists.


just some random thoughts on a long and winding discussion here.

peace.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2007)

Yes, I do know that most operations in Afghanistan transferred to NATO command about 8 months ago, or so. Under that NATO command there are 12,000 United States soldiers, as well as a number represented from other members of the alliance.

In addition, I believe there are 16,000 Americans in Afghanistan under American command.  (Take my numbers with a grain of salt here - I believe it is 28,000 Americans in Afghanistan under both commands - but I could have the numbers a bit mixed up).

The bomb that killed Gafoor was launched from a NATO plane. I have not seen reports as to the NATO member that was actually piloting the craft. 

NATO forces were not in the city where this bombing took place because of an earlier agreement to not be present in the city. Forces from the Taliban came into the city and took control. NATO killed 6 high ranking officers from that initial over-running of the town; one of whom was Mullah Gafoor's brother. It is believed that Mullah Gafoor was in the region to review the conditions of his brothers death.

But, of note, is that the locals in the town signed an agreement to keep NATO out.


----------



## Kreth (Feb 8, 2007)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Kreth/Jeff Velten
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 9, 2007)

Thank you to the Martialtalk staff for stepping in before this got even hotter.
On to the subject.



michaeledward said:


> Your inability to observe the damage to American standing in the world because of an ineffective use of military force does not negate that damage.



I think this a central point to the way we disagree and I am pulling it up for more discussion.

Now _*in this case,*_ the case of Afghanistan, what is ineffective about the use of military force? You have argued that we should not be using the military to kill terrorists in Afghanistan. Why should we pull out and let the Taliban take over and what is the ineffective part about it.

Oh, with a few million people in uniform and several dozen missions, you will not be hard pressed to find some rather extreme cases of stupidity. Schoolgirls getting crushed by an armored vehicle in South Korea, a wedding party bombed in Afghanistan, hot shot pilots breaking rules and sending an Italian gondola full of screaming people to their deaths..... But I do not see enough of a justification to pull all our troops back and stop using it to go after those that want to kill us. Perhaps you can explain. Your comments that AQ is not a centralized orginization and thus the military is not effective against them is not vaild IMO. Orginizations like that have been dealt with by military power to good effect. And I do not see how else we could go after them other than using the military.

Also, 



> Perhaps you know why the military is targeting individuals in Jeeps rather than those command, control and communications centers



Perhaps I should point out that despite what Hollywood has led us to expect, CCCs are far more likely to be guys living in tents in the field than bunkers. A few guys moving from place to place with the means to plan things and the means to send out messages is what you will find for sommand centers even in the US military unless you are really behind the lines a good ways. 

This is even more important when you are not regular soldiers. Mao, Tito and others who were fighting the government never stayed in one place more than 24 hours until very late in the battle. Because to stay in one place increases the risk that you will be found and targetted. And in this age, a guy with a few aides driving around in jeep and living out of a tent and _with a satellite phone_ can give orders to and coordinate operatives on the other side of the planet.

So you see, this guy quite probably was a mobile CCC. Whenever we find where they are, we take them out. Which also answers your questions about what we are doing about the expected Spring offensive. They are not going to make it easy for us to find them, and when we do we take action.

Also,



> I thought one of the principles of the American ideal was that the people have the right to self-determination. If the Afghanis who are members of the Taliban assume power and provide for the people, who are we to impose our will upon them. Again, the words - Puppet Regime - come to mind. We have become the muscle to Karzai's figurehead.



I really do not know how I can deal with the above seriously. If you were talking about an election, I could understand. But Karazai was elected and there are folks who want to drive him out by use of force against the wishes of the majority of people. I have heard a lot of (valid) complaints about how the US has cozied up to repressive regimes that never gave their people a say in power. Looking at what you have written, it seems that you think that we were merely respecting the will of the masses of that country by dealing with the people in power.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> You have argued that we should not be using the military to kill terrorists in Afghanistan.


 
Please find in my words where I said the United States should not kill terrorists? 

If you are going to make up words that I said, discussion becomes exteremely difficult.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Please find in my words where I said the United States should not kill terrorists?
> 
> If you are going to make up words that I said, discussion becomes exteremely difficult.



Well, maybe you should stick to the quote I used. I talked about you saying that you did not think *the military* should be used to kill terrorists _in Afghanistan_. 

And from post #116 here is a quote by you.



> To launch the full force of the United States military at the 'Taliban', or what is left of them, seems to me to be an very inappropriate tool to accomplish the goal.



Hope that clears that up. I could post more, but this seems enough unless you want to argue the point.

PS- if you want to quibble over whether the Taliban are terrorists or not- I would ask you to name one tactic such as suicide bombing that AQ does not.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Well, maybe you should stick to the quote I used. I talked about you saying that you did not think *the military* should be used to kill terrorists _in Afghanistan_.


 
I believe the expression is 'Sauce for the goose'. 

You paraphrase, and change the meaning of my words, then get testy about what I say? Sweet. 

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, Don Roley. 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And from post #116 here is a quote by you.
> 
> Hope that clears that up. I could post more, but this seems enough unless you want to argue the point.
> 
> PS- if you want to quibble over whether the Taliban are terrorists or not- I would ask you to name one tactic such as suicide bombing that AQ does not.


 
Are the Taliban al Qaeda? I think that is a fair question. You have made that supposition, without support. If you wish to discuss your apparent position that the two organizations are interchangable, that's fine. But, I do recognize them as two organizations. 

And somehow, I think you will end up editing your post script. It is a very unclear sentence.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I believe the expression is 'Sauce for the goose'.
> 
> You paraphrase, and change the meaning of my words, then get testy about what I say? Sweet.



So how did I change the meaning of your words? You seem to be doing your best to try to enrage me, but it is not working.

How did I change the meaning of 



> To launch the full force of the United States military at the 'Taliban', or what is left of them, seems to me to be an very inappropriate tool to accomplish the goal.



by stating it as



> You have argued that we should not be using the military to kill terrorists in Afghanistan.



The Taliban engages in suicide bombings and the attacking of civilians in Afghanistan. Is that not the tactics of a terrorist orginization?

Please stop trying to insult me and make me mad. I really would like you to explain you position so that we can all understand it.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Please stop trying to insult me and make me mad. I really would like you to explain you position so that we can all understand it.


 
Don Roley, I have no desire to insult you, nor to enrage you. 

It seems that you are the only person who seems unable to understand my position. My position has been spelled out regularly throughout this thread. You just don't seem to like it. 

A. 
The United States Military is a blunt weapon. Fighting al Qaeda requires a weapon that can be executed with surgical precision. The United States Military is not that weapon. Although certain units within the military can function with the appropriate level of precision, they are not being deployed or utilized in that manner. 

B. 
The United State Military, as it is currently deployed is, at best, creating instability in the region or, at worst, is functioning as the muscle to dictatorial power structures that we have put in place; "We've put *our* Sons of Bitches in power, and you ungrateful wretches better learn to accept them!"

C.
The Taliban are irrelevant. They are a law enforcement problem in Afghanistan. When we turned the rule of the country back over to Karzai, they became his problem. Not ours. Dropping Laser Guided or Satellite Guided Bombs from F-16's on to these criminals is just wrong.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems that you are the only person who seems unable to understand my position.



If one person can't understand you it may be because they lack the ability. When a lot of people can't understand you, the probable fault is with you.



michaeledward said:


> A.
> The United States Military is a blunt weapon. Fighting al Qaeda requires a weapon that can be executed with surgical precision. The United States Military is not that weapon. Although certain units within the military can function with the appropriate level of precision, they are not being deployed or utilized in that manner.



I disagree. There are both special forces units and bombers working in Afghanistan and to good effect. One group sees a guy with a lot of weapons drving along and another branch drops a shell on him. You need the full possibility of the military to not hobble them and let them do their job to the best of their ability.



michaeledward said:


> B.
> The United State Military, as it is currently deployed is, at best, creating instability in the region or, at worst, is functioning as the muscle to dictatorial power structures that we have put in place; "We've put *our* Sons of Bitches in power, and you ungrateful wretches better learn to accept them!"



Karzai was brought to power in a UN- monitored election. I do not think you would find that many will agree with your description of his government as a dictatorship. I hardly see how letting the Taliban come to power again will advance the cause of democracy.



michaeledward said:


> C.
> The Taliban are irrelevant. They are a law enforcement problem in Afghanistan. When we turned the rule of the country back over to Karzai, they became his problem. Not ours. Dropping Laser Guided or Satellite Guided Bombs from F-16's on to these criminals is just wrong.



So you are saying that it is Karzai's problem, not ours, and yet you take offense when someone points out that you do not think that the US military should be killing terrorists in Afghanistan. It seems to be the same thing said in a different manner.

And I would hardly call the Taliban irrelevent in this age where 19 guys with box cutters did the damage they did. I do not think that you will find many who would agree with your idea that they should just be ignored. I think they should be taken out _before_ they get a chance to bomb another school or bus full of children.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> And I would hardly call the Taliban irrelevent in this age where 19 guys with box cutters did the damage they did..


 

The 19 guys with box cutters of 9/11 were not Taliban, they were al Qaeda.
The Taliban was a political/military organization running Afghanistan.

The Taliban were primarily Afghani.
The 19 guys were primarily Saudi. 


If you refuse to understand the basic differences in these distinctions, we need to be deathly afraid of any group of 19 guys, anywhere in the world, at all times. At that point, everything becomes meaningless. Let's just nuke the world.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The 19 guys with box cutters of 9/11 were not Taliban, they were al Qaeda.
> The Taliban was a political/military organization running Afghanistan.
> 
> The Taliban were primarily Afghani.
> ...



I don't think you need to take that tone. Nobody is talking about nuking the world.

The simple fact is that we have seen what 19 guys with box cutters can do. I did not say they were AQ. So saying that they are irrelevent when we know what just a few guys can do was the point that you missed.

But AQ and the Taliban were partners. They learned from each other and gave support to each other. There is no reason to believe that they have cut their ties with each other. _Especially_ since they face a common enemy and are hiding out in the same area, share a common outlook, etc. If they are not the same orginization in all but name, then they are allies at the least and taking out the Taliban hardly helps Al Queada.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 9, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

SECOND AND FINAL WARNING*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------

