Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri

[ntdz]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842035/

I'm skeptical, but I hope it's true, could be a major step in the war on terror if true.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Since when are we allowed to bomb in Pakistan? However that would be great if we actually got him.

(Edit: Hit submit too early)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Since when are we allowed to bomb in Pakistan?

That is indeed strange. It also strikes me as odd that he is supposedly in charge of al Qaeda forces in Iraq, while supposedly living in Pakistan. There's also this little detail:

Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

 

[umbrella39]

This is a place that he is know to have safe houses near. No one reported actually seeing him in the area though, so it is not likely he was there at the time.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Since when are we allowed to bomb in Pakistan?

That is indeed strange. It also strikes me as odd that he is supposedly in charge of al Qaeda forces in Iraq, while supposedly living in Pakistan. There's also this little detail:

Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

Isn't Zarqawi the Iraq guy? Zawahiri is one of the top people in AQ under bin Laden, as far as I remember.

 

[slash196]

Killing one person is not a major step in the war on terror. And if we killed 30 villagers, we just created at least 30 more terrorist. Good job!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Since when are we allowed to bomb in Pakistan?

That is indeed strange. It also strikes me as odd that he is supposedly in charge of al Qaeda forces in Iraq, while supposedly living in Pakistan. There's also this little detail:

Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

Isn't Zarqawi the Iraq guy? Zawahiri is one of the top people in AQ under bin Laden, as far as I remember.

D'oh! I am dumb. That's what I get for posting while watching TV, drinking coffee, and talking on the phone!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Since when are we allowed to bomb in Pakistan?

That is indeed strange. It also strikes me as odd that he is supposedly in charge of al Qaeda forces in Iraq, while supposedly living in Pakistan. There's also this little detail:

Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

Isn't Zarqawi the Iraq guy? Zawahiri is one of the top people in AQ under bin Laden, as far as I remember.

D'oh! I am dumb. That's what I get for posting while watching TV, drinking coffee, and talking on the phone!

I did the same thing, but then I read the article and caught my mistake

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: slash196
Killing one person is not a major step in the war on terror. And if we killed 30 villagers, we just created at least 30 more terrorist. Good job!

Because the Japanese civilians became anti-U.S. terrorists after World War II?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: slash196
Killing one person is not a major step in the war on terror. And if we killed 30 villagers, we just created at least 30 more terrorist. Good job!

Because the Japanese civilians became anti-U.S. terrorists after World War II?

War against "terrorism" is not the same thing as war against a major, industrialized country, especially a country like Japan. If we learned one thing from Vietnam, it's that fighting the LAST war (or several wars ago in this case) is a bad idea.

Not that I think killing terrorists is a waste of time, but it's a stopgap measure. Actually winning the war on terror requires a slightly more complex approach.

 

[Jadow]

Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

if he was their, they knew he was and gave him refuge, if they did know he was there, they got what they deserved.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: slash196
Killing one person is not a major step in the war on terror. And if we killed 30 villagers, we just created at least 30 more terrorist. Good job!

Because the Japanese civilians became anti-U.S. terrorists after World War II?

No, because it is wrong. Zawahri is a dangerous terrorist. But it is not acceptable to 'mistakenly' harm villagers just because a terrorist can be killed. People may say killing Zawahri will save American lives. But are the lives of injured/killed Pakistani villagers worthless?
Does that mean it is ok for the police in the US to bomb an apartment complex to the ground where you live in order to kill an extremely dangerous murder who also happens to live there? Are you willing to accept your death as collateral damage so we can eliminate one of society's dangers?
We don't have the moral authority to decide whose life is more valuable.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

if he was their, they knew he was and gave him refuge, if they did know he was there, they got what they deserved.

And what if they didn't?

Edit: And remember what part of the world we are talking about, the women almsot certainly didn't consent to anything, and the children certainly didn't.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Reports indicate as many as 30 villagers, including some women and children, were killed.

if he was their, they knew he was and gave him refuge, if they did know he was there, they got what they deserved.

The children got what they deserved?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: slash196
Killing one person is not a major step in the war on terror. And if we killed 30 villagers, we just created at least 30 more terrorist. Good job!

Because the Japanese civilians became anti-U.S. terrorists after World War II?

No, because it is wrong. Zawahri is a dangerous terrorist. But it is not acceptable to 'mistakenly' harm villagers just because a terrorist can be killed. People may say killing Zawahri will save American lives. But are the lives of injured/killed Pakistani villagers worthless?
Does that mean it is ok for the police in the US to bomb an apartment complex to the ground where you live in order to kill an extremely dangerous murder who also happens to live there? Are you willing to accept your death as collateral damage so we can eliminate one of society's dangers?
We don't have the moral authority to decide whose life is more valuable.

Explain how we take serious military action without harming innocent civilians. Yeah, it's impossible.

 

[BlancoNino]

The children got what they deserved?

The children the children the children the children the children the children the children the children...

:roll:

 

[MadRat]

Is that the guy who was Bin Laden's mentor, actually the top dog of AQ?

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: slash196
Killing one person is not a major step in the war on terror. And if we killed 30 villagers, we just created at least 30 more terrorist. Good job!

Because the Japanese civilians became anti-U.S. terrorists after World War II?

No, because it is wrong. Zawahri is a dangerous terrorist. But it is not acceptable to 'mistakenly' harm villagers just because a terrorist can be killed. People may say killing Zawahri will save American lives. But are the lives of injured/killed Pakistani villagers worthless?
Does that mean it is ok for the police in the US to bomb an apartment complex to the ground where you live in order to kill an extremely dangerous murder who also happens to live there? Are you willing to accept your death as collateral damage so we can eliminate one of society's dangers?
We don't have the moral authority to decide whose life is more valuable.

Explain how we take serious military action without harming innocent civilians. Yeah, it's impossible.

Are we at war with Pakistan?

 

[nihilaxiom]

It just amazes me. All these's people for this idiotic "war" on terror who for some reason cannot understand that these terror organizations are NOT static. Killing one leader ( or even more ) will not end the "terror" . Some other terrorist will just step right up and lead and you can bet they will be even more angry and hatefull towards America. Bush ( and his bushwackers) have this compleately insane idea that they can "win" the war on terror. for god sake take a look at Israel, how long have they been trying to "win" the war on terrorism? Wake up bushwackers!

 

[jpeyton]

Do you guys really think we killed Zawahri?

Remember how many times we've killed or maimed Zarqawi?

But "may have killed Zawahri" sounds a lot better than "killed 30 innocent men, women, and children".

Don't your eyelids itch with all the wool pulled over them?

 

[compuwiz1]

If we went into Pakistan, who we are not at war with, and killed 30 innocent civilians, then shame on us. That's just fsking wrong! :|

 

[tommywishbone]

Yes, we got Zawarhi. In other news; I'm selling a bridge in Brooklyn... slightly used... Grandmother needs surgery, please make offer.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Do you guys really think we killed Zawahri?

Remember how many times we've killed or maimed Zarqawi?

But "may have killed Zawahri" sounds a lot better than "killed 30 innocent men, women, and children".

Don't your eyelids itch with all the wool pulled over them?

The thought had occurred to me as well. The headline definitely takes the spotlight away from a mass killing of civilians in a country that is nominally our ally.

As a former Airman, I find it a little odd (okay, a lot odd) that the CIA has armed aircraft in the first place.

 

[delas52]

It's not worth it if any innocent lives were lost...

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
If we went into Pakistan, who we are not at war with, and killed 30 innocent civilians, then shame on us. That's just fsking wrong! :|

Even if thats where all the Al-Qaeda leaders are?