Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been taken out.

[Kensai]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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!

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]

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.

Ahem ahem

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?"

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?".

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]

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]

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: