Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Thanks, Howard Dean. 😕

For some the glass will always be empty.

Thanks, G. Gordon Liddy.

What, specifically, is the glass-half-full perspective on this incident? What is the upside?

 

[Darkhawk28]

CNN breaking: Zawahiri NOT dead.

Great job.

Edit: But seriously, don't some people ever get tired of being wrong? :laugh:

 

[stateofbeasley]

Not confirmed for sure yet, but it looks like in this case the glass was empty:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/14/alqaeda.strike/index.html

Al-Zawahiri apparently not killed.

Do you honestly think that murdering civilians is a glass half full? This kind of action only increases hatred for the United States.

Originally posted by: 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.

 

[alchemize]

*sigh* he would have been a good target.

You all realize that if Kerry had been elected president, then Al-Zawahiri would have been there right?!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize
*sigh* he would have been a good target.

You all realize that if Kerry had been elected president, then Al-Zawahiri would have been there right?!

What the hell does Kerry have to do with this thread? Why not bring up Clinton while you're at it? Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Pakistan condems strike.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize
*sigh* he would have been a good target.

You all realize that if Kerry had been elected president, then Al-Zawahiri would have been there right?!

What the hell does Kerry have to do with this thread? Why not bring up Clinton while you're at it? Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Pakistan condems strike.

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize
*sigh* he would have been a good target.

You all realize that if Kerry had been elected president, then Al-Zawahiri would have been there right?!

What the hell does Kerry have to do with this thread? Why not bring up Clinton while you're at it? Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Pakistan condems strike.

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

In other words, nothing to do with this thread at all...as I said.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Typical "conservative" garbage. What Clinton did and what Kerry would have done are irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by: alchemize

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize
*sigh* he would have been a good target.

You all realize that if Kerry had been elected president, then Al-Zawahiri would have been there right?!

What the hell does Kerry have to do with this thread? Why not bring up Clinton while you're at it? Absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Pakistan condems strike.

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

In other words, nothing to do with this thread at all...as I said.

Really? Airstrikes against individuals in a country we aren't at war with as a matter of policy is off-topic?

Try reading about 15 posts in this thread bemoaning or supporting the policy.

How does it feel to be a complete knee-jerk partisan?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Typical "conservative" garbage. What Clinton did and what Kerry would have done are irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by: alchemize

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

How are they irrelevant, exactly.

Did Clinton have a policy consistent with this? Did Kerry state he would have a policy consistent with this?

Complete relevancy - my postulation is that many of the reactions (from both sides) is based on who is currently president 😀

 

[slash196]

Saying Kerry would've done the same thing is, unfortunately, not a valid defense. In fact, it's not even true.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Typical "conservative" garbage. What Clinton did and what Kerry would have done are irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by: alchemize

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

How are they irrelevant, exactly.

Did Clinton have a policy consistent with this? Did Kerry state he would have a policy consistent with this?

Complete relevancy - my postulation is that many of the reactions (from both sides) is based on who is currently president 😀

No, you're trying to throw in Kerry (and maybe Clinton) to try to cover as a good fanboy should. I don't know that this has anything to do with Bush, and never claimed as such, but I sure as hell know that this bombing had nothing to do with Kerry or Clinton. There's no kneejerk reaction in this thread from me about partisanship except toward your irrelevant Kerry rumblings.

What this does illistrate, however, is a continuing series of intelligence failures resulting in strikes that do nothing except create unrest (and possibly more terrorists) in the ME and surrounding reagions, not to mention the political unrest from those governments of those areas (such as Pakistan)

 

[stateofbeasley]

The issue is whether botched airstrikes based on questionable intelligence are counterproductive to the war on terror. How political hacks are going to react to this is at best a peripheral issue.

Originally posted by: alchemize

How are they irrelevant, exactly.

Did Clinton have a policy consistent with this? Did Kerry state he would have a policy consistent with this?

Complete relevancy - my postulation is that many of the reactions (from both sides) is based on who is currently president 😀

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: slash196
Saying Kerry would've done the same thing is, unfortunately, not a valid defense. In fact, it's not even true.

I seem to recall multiple statements about his aggressive policies in tracking down terrorists. I don't recall any where he said he would cease airstrikes.

While of course it's speculation on my part backed by statements, do you have any statements to back up your assertion?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Typical "conservative" garbage. What Clinton did and what Kerry would have done are irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by: alchemize

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

How are they irrelevant, exactly.

Did Clinton have a policy consistent with this? Did Kerry state he would have a policy consistent with this?

Complete relevancy - my postulation is that many of the reactions (from both sides) is based on who is currently president 😀

No, you're trying to throw in Kerry (and maybe Clinton) to try to cover as a good fanboy should. I don't know that this has anything to do with Bush, and never claimed as such, but I sure as hell know that this bombing had nothing to do with Kerry or Clinton. There's no kneejerk reaction in this thread from me about partisanship except toward your irrelevant Kerry rumblings.

So you feel that Kerry would have ceased this policy? Evidence?

As far as kneejerk - look at the liberals stumbling over each other to "smack me down" for "irrelevancy"!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Typical "conservative" garbage. What Clinton did and what Kerry would have done are irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by: alchemize

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

How are they irrelevant, exactly.

Did Clinton have a policy consistent with this? Did Kerry state he would have a policy consistent with this?

Complete relevancy - my postulation is that many of the reactions (from both sides) is based on who is currently president 😀

No, you're trying to throw in Kerry (and maybe Clinton) to try to cover as a good fanboy should. I don't know that this has anything to do with Bush, and never claimed as such, but I sure as hell know that this bombing had nothing to do with Kerry or Clinton. There's no kneejerk reaction in this thread from me about partisanship except toward your irrelevant Kerry rumblings.

So you feel that Kerry would have ceased this policy? Evidence?

I don't care about what Kerry would have or could have done. He lost, get over it. The current administration is the Bush administration and if there is any wrongdoings, it goes to that side (and I'm not even saying that anything is/was wrong...(yet).

Why the fasination to bring up a loser in an election? Something to hide or make you nervous?

Your desire to defend Bush, even before I have attacked him and still may not, is very close to deserving a . However, I'm sure Mrs. alchemize and baby alchemize could use them more at this point! 😀

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: slash196
Saying Kerry would've done the same thing is, unfortunately, not a valid defense. In fact, it's not even true.

You're right. If Kerry were in power, we wouldn't waste our time with such nuances as killing terrorists who vow to destroy us.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: slash196
Saying Kerry would've done the same thing is, unfortunately, not a valid defense. In fact, it's not even true.

You're right. If Kerry were in power, we wouldn't waste our time with such nuances as killing terrorists who vow to destroy us.

Kerry isn't in power, Bush is so it's irrelevant. Another fanboy trying to divert this to Kerry as if they're afraid Bush will look bad (even though most of us haven't mentioned Bush and most likely, he had no direct control of the bombing anyway).

Also, looks like we missed those terrorists, if there were truely any there. Our intelligence is looking more and more susptect every single month. Better get some more political capital to make up for it. Pakistan has every right to be pissed and file formal complaints.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
Typical "conservative" garbage. What Clinton did and what Kerry would have done are irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by: alchemize

I think the responses to the thread would be totally different if Kerry were elected president 🙂

Clinton could be discussed too - since he was a democrat who kinda set the precedent of airstrikes against terrorists.

You could say Reagan - but he really attacked a country (Libya).

How are they irrelevant, exactly.

Did Clinton have a policy consistent with this? Did Kerry state he would have a policy consistent with this?

Complete relevancy - my postulation is that many of the reactions (from both sides) is based on who is currently president 😀

No, you're trying to throw in Kerry (and maybe Clinton) to try to cover as a good fanboy should. I don't know that this has anything to do with Bush, and never claimed as such, but I sure as hell know that this bombing had nothing to do with Kerry or Clinton. There's no kneejerk reaction in this thread from me about partisanship except toward your irrelevant Kerry rumblings.

So you feel that Kerry would have ceased this policy? Evidence?

I don't care about what Kerry would have or could have done. He lost, get over it. The current administration is the Bush administration and if there is any wrongdoings, it goes to that side (and I'm not even saying that anything is/was wrong...(yet).

Why the fasination to bring up a loser in an election? Something to hide or make you nervous?

Your desire to defend Bush, even before I have attacked him and still may not, is very close to deserving a . However, I'm sure Mrs. alchemize and baby alchemize could use them more at this point! 😀

I remember almost wishing Kerry would win, just too see how things such as this, the war in Iraq, etc. would have been dealt with 🙂 It would have been fascinating.

How have I defended Bush anyhow? I'm as irritated about the intelligence failure as anyone.

Frankly I think we need MAJOR reforms in this country - especially in intelligence. But I don't see either party stepping up to the plate. And you are correct to place the blame on the current administration. I just think people are fantasizing to think that it would be any different without Bush in power (as clinton proved ala cruise missles, aspirin factory)

Mrs. Alchemize is sleeping off a Rhogham shot - I passed your cookie to the alchemize Jr's, only after explaining to them that it came for a liberal and might not taste as good as conservative cookies 😀

 

[stateofbeasley]

😛

Libertarians give out real, all-natural conservative cookies. Republicans like to add trans-fatty acids and other artificial ingredients. They aren't real conservative cookies.

Originally posted by: alchemize
I passed your cookie to the alchemize Jr's, only after explaining to them that it came for a liberal and might not taste as good as conservative cookies 😀

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
😛

Libertarians give out real, all-natural conservative cookies. Republicans like to add trans-fatty acids and other artificial ingredients. They aren't real conservative cookies.

Originally posted by: alchemize
I passed your cookie to the alchemize Jr's, only after explaining to them that it came for a liberal and might not taste as good as conservative cookies 😀

And don't forget, liberal s are UNION made in the USA. Conservative s are imported from Latin America! :laugh:

😛

Sorry ntzd to go OT. Just a little livening up of the end of the thread. Now back to the OP, already in progress.

 

[BBond]

So now the nation that made up stories about Saddam's non-existent unmanned drones attacking us is using unmanned drones to attack others.

Pakistan isn't very happy about this. It seem 17 or 18 people were killed in the U.S. attack and some were women and children. Now ask yourselves, if Saddam really had unmanned drones that he used to attack us what would our reaction have been? Now ask yourselves, if Pakistan were to react in the same way what right would we have to complain?

One more question, if Pakistan is such a "key ally" of the U.S. then why wasn't that key ally involved in this attempt to sanction Zawhiri? Answer: Because Pakistan isn't a key ally. Musharraf has been playing Bush for a sucker from day one. And you really can't blame him. With the black and white good guy bad guy mythology firmly implanted in his pea brain, Bush is so easily duped.

And to OK this on information from our CIA??? The same CIA that Bush blamed for the lies he told to justify the unprovoked invasion of Iraq? Everyone knows the CIA was used as a scapegoat for Bush's lies but if we believe the excuse Bush gave for a moment -- that the CIA was incapable of accurate intel before the Bush "shake up" and installation of his own partisans at the agency -- then how could they possibly be capable of accurate intel now after Bush has completely over run the agency with his lackeys?

This just doesn't make sense. On the one hand Bush and his cronies whine about reports in the news on abuse of the Qu'ran inciting hatred of the U.S. and on the other they indiscriminately bomb remote villages, killing women and children, based on intel from an agency that Bush himself has discredited.

Please, someone get these idiots out of Washington before they do any more harm.

Pakistan protests U.S. missile strike

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan said Saturday it had filed a formal protest with the U.S. Embassy over a deadly airstrike on a border village that reportedly targeted al-Qaida's No. 2 and killed at least 17 people.

"According to preliminary investigations there was foreign presence in the area and that, in all probability, was targeted from across the border in Afghanistan," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "The investigations are still continuing."

"Meanwhile, the Foreign Office has lodged a protest with the U.S. Ambassador in Islamabad," the ministry said.

The U.S. Embassy had not yet received any protest by mid-evening Saturday, embassy spokesman Rakesh Surampudi said.

Not at the site
Pakistani officials said Saturday on condition of anonymity that Friday's airstrike in the northwestern village of Dalamoda, which killed at least 17 people, targeted Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant.

But Pakistan's assessment was the al-Qaida suspect was not at the site and the CIA had launched the attack based on incorrect information.

Pakistan is a key ally in the U.S.-led war on terror and has deployed tens of thousands of troops along the Afghan border to hunt down al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, but it says it does not allow U.S. forces to operate on its soil.

...

An AP reporter who visited Damadola about 12 hours after the attack saw three destroyed houses, hundreds of yards apart. Villagers had buried at least 15 people, including women and children, and were digging for more bodies in the rubble.

Villagers denied hosting al-Zawahri or any other al-Qaida or Taliban figure, and said all the dead were local people.

...

Doctors told AP that at least 17 people died in the attack, but residents of Damadola, a Pashtun tribal hamlet on a hillside about four miles from the Afghan border, said more than 30 had died.

They recounted hearing aircraft flying overhead before bombs or missiles crashed through the village -- blasts that were felt miles away.

Speaking as he dug through the cement rubble of his home, Zaman said he heard planes at around 2:40 a.m. and then eight explosions. He said planes had been flying over the village for the last three or four days.

At another destroyed house, Sami Ullah, a 17-year-old student, said 24 of his family members were killed and vowed he would "seek justice from God."

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: stateofbeasley
😛

Libertarians give out real, all-natural conservative cookies. Republicans like to add trans-fatty acids and other artificial ingredients. They aren't real conservative cookies.

Originally posted by: alchemize
I passed your cookie to the alchemize Jr's, only after explaining to them that it came for a liberal and might not taste as good as conservative cookies 😀

I would have to concur. I'm only going to get a wheat-free trans-fatless cooke from a libertarian. Of course, I'll have to trust him that it's real - it would take a socialist to enforce it 😀

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Kerry isn't in power, Bush is so it's irrelevant. Another fanboy trying to divert this to Kerry as if they're afraid Bush will look bad (even though most of us haven't mentioned Bush and most likely, he had no direct control of the bombing anyway).

Nice try. I didn't bring up Kerry, I was simply responding to the points raised about him.

Also, looks like we missed those terrorists, if there were truely any there. Our intelligence is looking more and more susptect every single month. Better get some more political capital to make up for it. Pakistan has every right to be pissed and file formal complaints.

Jumping the gun a bit, aren't we?

 

[Jave]

Sad sad sad.
It appears that it does not matter how much Pakistan cooperates with US, US + quite a few in this forum do not give a crap about its people. Quite a few in this forum believe that Pakistan does not give enough access to US to bomb or catch al-quida in Pakistan, they need to think again. US has complete bombing rights in Iraq and they have not been able to catch Zarqawi, giving more bombing rights or access is just an excuse to shift blame from having crapping intellegence or not so so intellegent agencies and of course. Also, Bush's ratings are going down whats better than showing that who is the boss in the world Americans in general love that and will forget about his incapabilities.