Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Drones.

 

[Lemon law]

To clear up the possible confusion

Zawahri is Egytian born--had some involvement in and was arrested in regard the the Sadat assination. He was later released and is somewhat regarded as the brains of Al Quida.

Zawcari ( possible mis-spelling ) is Jordanian born and now somewhat leads parts of the Iraq insurgency. Zawcari was not originally Al Quida but now works with Al Quida--or now has Al Quida blessings.

Any claims that we got Zawahri is unconfirmed as yet. DNA records will be checked so it may be a time consuming process.-------but iss a high probability that many of the dead will be totally innocent people being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

So its until I hear more, I will wait to bring out my kazoo.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Drones.

Ahem - I know that. Specifically, they're Predators with Hellfire missles. It still strikes me as strange. I remember first hearing about the CIA Predators in 2002 or so, when one killed someone touted as a senior al Qaeda leader in a convoy in Afghanistan.

In this instance, I remain wary of the CIA taking credit for killing Zawahiri - I can't help but wonder if they're just trying to defray attention from the significant civilian casualties.

 

[dahunan]

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?

The whole NATION of Japan was united in WAR .. their country was at war and they knew they were all targets because of this

Where are the roses from the Iraqis and why did we have to stage so many fake events in Iraq to try to create some public support for our bloodthirst

 

[Rainsford]

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.

That doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and not worry about civilian casualties. To borrow a phrase from the right, that's just not how the world works anymore.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

The children got what they deserved?

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

:roll:

Seems like a reasonable question to me, you suggest that "they" got what they deserved. Since "they" includes children, it seems like some clarification on your part might be necessary. Unless you want to come off like a psychopath, which IS possible I guess.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

That doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and not worry about civilian casualties. To borrow a phrase from the right, that's just not how the world works anymore.

Who says we don't worry about them? We take extraordinary precautions to try to reduce civilian casualties...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

The children got what they deserved?

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

:roll:

You sound very much like bin Laden himself, or Timothy McVeigh.

 

[dahunan]

Extraordinary actions to avoid civilian casualties would be something like not attacking countries who didn't attack us first? and therefore not killing 30,000+ of their citizens?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Who says we don't worry about them? We take extraordinary precautions to try to reduce civilian casualties...

In general I agree, and in fact I've seen the target-vetting process firsthand. That said, there's the larger question of what targets are and are not of sufficient gravity to justify such significant collateral damage, and the still-larger question of when, if ever, an offensive shooting war like OIF is justified. I could make a pretty strong argument that each of the tens of thousands of civilian casualties in OIF was unnecessary, in that the war itself isn't fulfilling any critical (or even meaningful) national-security objective.

 

[BarneyFife]

This about 200th time in the past year that "may have killed him". LOL @Bush and his incompetent military who can't catch anything.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Seems like this has done a lot more harm than good. It appears that nearly all those killed were law-abiding citizens. Link.

Worst part is:

The attack was the latest in a series of apparent air or missile strikes on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan, unexplained by authorities but widely suspected to have targeted terror suspects or Islamic militants.

Last Saturday, an attack on a cleric's home in North Waziristan, 125 miles southwest of Bajur, killed eight people. Local tribesmen claimed U.S. helicopters launched the attack and took away five tribesmen. Pakistan's government protested to the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The U.S. military denied it had bombed the area.

Last month, a senior al-Qaida suspect from Egypt, Hamza Rabia, was killed in North Waziristan. Pakistan denied residents' claims that he died in a U.S. missile strike.

In early 2004 during a major Pakistani counterterrorism operation in neighboring South Waziristan, Pakistani officials said on condition of anonymity that al-Zawahri was believed to be hiding in the area, but the reports were never substantiated.

Pakistan has tens of thousands of forces deployed along the Afghan border to hunt al-Qaida and Taliban militants and maintains a sensitive alliance with the United States in its war on terror, which is opposed by many in this Islamic nation of 150 million people. Pakistan says it does not allow Afghan or the 20,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan to operate on its soil.

"Our people say Americans did it," Rashid said. "If it is true, then Pakistan should lodge a strong protest with the U.S. government for killing innocent people."

Grrrrrrrrreat. Seems like another thing the Bushies are lying about...

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

That doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and not worry about civilian casualties. To borrow a phrase from the right, that's just not how the world works anymore.

Nor does it mean we should just throw up our hands and not engage in any military action at all for fear of harming anyone.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
This about 200th time in the past year that "may have killed him". LOL @Bush and his incompetent military who can't catch anything.

For f*cks sake, it's two different people. Zawahri IS NOT Zarqawi.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ntdz

For f*cks sake, it's two different people. Zawahri IS NOT Zarqawi.

I don't think that's what he means. There have been a number of instances in which we were either "very close" to killing or capturing Zawahri, yet we have nothing to show for it (other than, in this instance, a bunch of dead Pakistani kids).

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

The children got what they deserved?

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

:roll:

You sound very much like bin Laden himself, or Timothy McVeigh.

Shh. Don't let them know how much they have become what they dispise. Mission accomplished for the faithful whenever a tan person is exterminated in the name of teh terrorz.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ntdz

For f*cks sake, it's two different people. Zawahri IS NOT Zarqawi.

I don't think that's what he means. There have been a number of instances in which we were either "very close" to killing or capturing Zawahri, yet we have nothing to show for it (other than, in this instance, a bunch of dead Pakistani kids).

I only recall one other - when the pakistan army had him surrounded and he escaped through tunnels?

Zarqawi on the other hand...

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: 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?

We should be.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Who says we don't worry about them? We take extraordinary precautions to try to reduce civilian casualties...

U.S. and Pakistani officials told NBC News that as many as 10 missiles were fired at the village

 

[Lemon law]

This just in on Yahoo news--------looks like we did not get Zawahri-----who was not in the area---even doughtful we got any terrorists-------but we sure killed a pile of women and children.

Some 8000 local tribesmen are calling the attack terrorism.

 

[qoou]

killed 5 children =*(

 

[Pabster]

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!

Thanks, Howard Dean. 😕

For some the glass will always be empty.

 

[Lemon law]

I wonder how much of this type thing is simply using the gullable US to assinate someone you don't like?
All you have to be is start a rumor that a terrorist is visiting and wait.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I wonder how much of this type thing is simply using the gullable US to assinate someone you don't like?
All you have to be is start a rumor that a terrorist is visiting and wait.

Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the terrorists themselves that are starting these rumors. Just to get the CIA and the likes to bomb innocent people so more people will hate the U.S.

 

[Aimster]

There goes Pakistan's support for the U.S

Treat people like they dont matter, and they will stop supporting you.