Al-Qaeda No. 3 killed

[Jaskalas]

What do you mean can't? Can't is not in my vocabulary. We need to study more of the second Boer war and less of the tactics these powder puff generals like McCrystal is shoveling. Or how just about any insurgency from Alexander the Great until MacArthur was fired would work too.

Correction, we can but we won't. Does that make it feel any better?

It is a sound strategy to pull out of Afghanistan, let whoever wants it come in and take power, and then we carpet bomb them if they ever touch us again.

There is no need to nation build from the ruins we leave behind. They'll do that themselves.

 

[blackangst1]

Put em up, we'll take em out

 

[MarkXIX]

Bush gets all the credit right?

Why are you mentioning Bush? Why do we keep brining the former President up again? Does not compute...

 

[Lemon law]

Its not "killed", its just how Al-Qaeda ppl retire.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As our own generals tell us, we cannot kill our way out of our problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if anything, after near ten 10 years of effort and every benefit of military technology, victory is further away now than before 911.

IMHO, we can mainly blame our own stupidity and ineptness for the semi miraculous ability of Nato to grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory.

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Bush gets all the credit right?

Why are you mentioning Bush? Why do we keep brining the former President up again? Does not compute...

Obviously you are new

Everything good Republicans get credit, everything bad Democrats are blamed.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Bush gets all the credit right?




Obviously you are new

Everything good Republicans get credit, everything bad Democrats are blamed.

You are the buffoon running around these forums constantly blaming Republicans for everything and bringing Bush up, when you voted for him.

Back on topic, the best Al Qaeda member is a dead one. Good job.

 

[OCGuy]

Not only did we take #3 out with a drone strike, we took out a bunch of women and children in the process.

Last week the US military had the galling task of admitting to the world that a bunch of idiot drone operators were exaggerating and distorting what they really saw to their superior officers, and as a result they killed a large number of totally innocent civilians.

And right now, the UN is very seriously thinking about outlawing the use of drones in warfare.

As we can see, drones can be very useful, but its all to easy to abuse their use. And its very questionable IMHO, given the net hatreds drones have focused on Nato in the tribal areas of Pakistan, on weather drones have been a net assert or bigger net liability.

The UN doesnt "outlaw" anything. Each nation would have to sign a treaty, which we wont.

We wont sign the landmine treaty, either.

 

[dmcowen674]

Not only did we take #3 out with a drone strike, we took out a bunch of women and children in the process.

WTF? A Terrist apologist, are you fucking serious?

You actually believe those people had no idea they were hanging with a Terrist?

I say we ship you over there pronto and hang close to your heroes while the Drone Ops get a bead on them.

 

[JSt0rm]

does this matter? number 4 now becomes 3. Whoopie do. We didn't kill the main dude when we had the chance cuz rummie wanted to go to war still.

 

[MarkXIX]

Bigger than just someone replacing him. This guy was one of the founders of Al-Qaeda, not just some "money guy" who fell in on a vacancy.

If I may, its akin to killing Paul Allen of Microsoft fame. He was one of the founders of the organization, so I'm sure people looked up to him beyond the regular old "backup guy" in the organization. If Paul Allen died tomorrow, Microsoft would most definitely handle his death differently than the guy that wrote the network code for Windows Vista (and fucked it up pretty bad by the way).

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Not only did we take #3 out with a drone strike, we took out a bunch of women and children in the process.

It is sad that there is collateral damage, but the only people to blame for the deaths of those alleged innocents would be Al Qaeda. Sorry, your attempt at a tearjerker story doesn't work on most of us.

War is hell, and Al Qaeda and others are very, very fortunate that the US has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with them. If the US were to wage all-out war, Al Qaeda would have been history long ago. Political restraints prevent our military from waging all-out war, and in some cases, that is necessary.

Last week the US military had the galling task of admitting to the world that a bunch of idiot drone operators were exaggerating and distorting what they really saw to their superior officers, and as a result they killed a large number of totally innocent civilians.

Link? If that's the case, those people should be investigated, tried, and if found guilty, punished accordingly. That does not mean drones should not be used or anything like that.

And right now, the UN is very seriously thinking about outlawing the use of drones in warfare.

Ooooo, the UN -- I'm sure everyone is trembling in fear. What are they going to do, shoot drones down with their rubber bullets? The US will never sign on to a provision outlawing drones.

As we can see, drones can be very useful, but its all to easy to abuse their use. And its very questionable IMHO, given the net hatreds drones have focused on Nato in the tribal areas of Pakistan, on weather drones have been a net assert or bigger net liability.

In the past, missile strikes (whether cruise missile or air-to-ground) have gone off target or have inflicted unfortunate collateral damage. Should we outlaw those too? Rather than whining about it and trying to imply the US is to blame, how about looking at who is REALLY responsible for the deaths of those people? You know, like maybe -- Al Qaeda or the Taliban? The US has undertaken extraordinary measures to minimize collateral damage but unfortunately, some will always happen. You and others fail to realize that if the "War on Terror" had happened in the 40s or 50s, we'd have carpet-bombed large swaths of land and that would have resulted in far more casualties.

 

[nick1985]

WTF? A Terrist apologist, are you fucking serious?

You actually believe those people had no idea they were hanging with a Terrist?

I say we ship you over there pronto and hang close to your heroes while the Drone Ops get a bead on them.

Dave....I agree with you.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Dave....I agree with you.

Scary, isn't it? I had to look out my window and see if an asteroid was about to end life on earth, because when Dave says something that you agree with, the end must be near.

 

[Kadarin]

And right now, the UN is very seriously thinking about outlawing the use of drones in warfare.

This made me LOL.

 

[JSt0rm]

fwi... this is the 7th number 3 man killed since 2001.

 

[shira]

Why are you mentioning Bush? Why do we keep bringing the former President up again? Does not compute...

Every time I even think of the former President I bring something up.

 

[irishScott]

Last I checked AQ and most terrorist organizations operate in virtually autonomous cells. Highly distributed. We took out the number 3 guy, but (unless we just don't here about such things) the cells are still chugging.

 

[woolfe9999]

What are you talking about? Ayman al-Zawahiri is and has been #2 for 15 years and he is perfectly alive.

Yup. We have been killing AQ's number 3 and 4 repeatedly since 9/11, under both admins. Obviously someone else takes the person's place after one is killed. The "number 2 in Iraq" is not the same as the number 2 in AQ. We've never even touched Zawahiri. In fact, that's what the CIA bombing in Afghanistan was about. The "mole" who turned on us was supposed to give us a line to Zawahiri.

- wolf

 

[Oceandevi]

Fuck those children hanging out with their family they chose.

 

[nick1985]

This made me LOL.

I got a good chuckle from that as well

 

[Lemon law]

In terms the news coming out of Afghanistan in the past few days, admittedly more concerned with the Taliban than Al-Quida, is that given the attack levels, the overall insurgency does not seem handicapped by the loss of #3 in any way.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

In terms the news coming out of Afghanistan in the past few days, admittedly more concerned with the Taliban than Al-Quida, is that given the attack levels, the overall insurgency does not seem handicapped by the loss of #3 in any way.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop killing them, does it?

 

[artikk]

There's a way to win the war on terrorism around the world. First, one would have to limit immigration into Europe and the rest of the west of Muslims. Second, the most important step would be to find a better long term source of energy besides oil. Once the world does this, the Middle East will revert back to being in the Middle Ages and the funding for Al Qaeda and others will dry up. Suppressing the opium trade in Afganistan would also help to eliminate terrorism locally.
These measures are all long term, non violent, and are similar to those proposed to fight illegal immigration(especially elimination of incentives for propagation of an issue).
Compared to these possible measures, the news article isn't that really important even on a short term scale. Replacing a top official is difficult but not impossible.

 

[Lemon law]

This made me LOL.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you finally get off the floor and your chuckling rate reduces enough for your brain to process information, you might finally get around to asking yourself, why are we still in Afghanistan, still bleeding money and lives, and what are we trying to accomplish as an end goal?

Are you starting to get it yet, or do you need it explained in more detail?

The point is that Nato chased Al-Quida and the Taliban out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan in the first six months, way back in the spring of 2002. The Nato problem is keeping them out. And Nato will not win the subsequent peace until Nato can keep the Taliban and Al-Quida out of the entire region. And step one for Nato is to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. And what is really screwing Nato up in that area is a lack of funding to build any modern infrastructure, a total lack of troops, and then Nato really cuts their own throat by SUPPORTING a totally corrupt and
dysfunctional Afghan government, and now the Nato compounds that error by exporting
its violence to the tribal areas of Pakistan. And while the average American on the street may not lose any sleep when American made drones kill innocent civilians, women and children, it has especially made the people in the Tribal regions of Pakistan hopping mad angry at the USA and Nato. And when that civilian anger against US drones is married to the concrete action of joining the Taliban or Al-Quida, and then killing Nato soldiers to drive Nato and the drones out of their home country, maybe its time to wipe that silly grin off your face and start using your head for something other than a hat rack.

If nothing else we can say, we have been at it in Afghanistan for damn neat 10 years now, and we are further away from victory than when we started. And if do not believe me, you might note Gen McCrystal is making many of the same points.

 

[woolfe9999]

In terms the news coming out of Afghanistan in the past few days, admittedly more concerned with the Taliban than Al-Quida is that given the attack levels, the overall insurgency does not seem handicapped by the loss of #3 in any way.

The bolded part of your statement explains why there is no connection between the thread topic and the overall insurgency level Afghanistan. Killing AQ leadership is not about gaining tactical or strategic advantage in Afghanistan. It's about reducing the risk of terrorist attacks on American and/or allied soil, and it's about demoralizing the jihadist enemy in general.

- wolf