Al-Zawahiri target of Predator Drone.

[Stinger]

"4 or 5" is now 10?

10 according to Fox News reporting of the statement from the Pakistan government this morning but 4 or 5 would seen a successful mission also. Plus the fact it sends the message "we can find you and we can kill you and if you are harboring or associating with these people you may end up dead too"

 

[MSgt]

1. statistically invalid. you're more than an order of magnitude between ranges.

2. rationalization, but not rational. Negligence and Incompitance on the part of one shooter, does not but blame on the other shooter by default. "collateral damage" is "acceptable" (I don't agree) under law, Stupidity is not.

Lastly, Judgement is not afforded to you.

1. I guess these scholar's reports and studies are also "statistically invalid?" Don't stop here. Continue on and study what you obviously know so little of. There is such a wide margin between numbers because it is a difficult thing to narrow. All that can be done is to statistically use the Muslim countries (63), determine how much of that 90percent of the world's current conflicts involve Muslim countries and study the social structures within. How embarassing for you.....

Arnaud de Borchgrave - Senior Adviser and Director
Center for Strategic and International Studies...."One percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million Muslim fanatics who believe America is the Great Satan, fount of all evil, to be attacked and demolished. Moderate Islam has yet to find a voice that will roll back the extremists, a sort of Islamic Martin Luther [the original, not the one who misappropriated his name] or a Mohandas Gandhi."

http://www.grecoreport.com/radical_islam_rising.htm

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is an international business strategist who has been a consultant to governments, international agencies, and boards of some of the world's largest corporations. Among his nine books are....
"Among the close to one million Dutch Muslims, about 95 percent are moderates. This implies that there are up to 50,000 potential radicals." That means 5 percent in the Netherlands are Radical.

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief004-14.htm

Though I agree with many of his views, I do not subscribe to his naive views on what a moderate Muslim is. However, Dr. Daniel Pipes is a leading nationally published Commentary and Analysis on Militant Islam and a renowned Middle East expert. He is the author of 12 books...."Militant Islam derives from Islam but is a misanthropic, misogynist, triumphalist, millenarian, anti-modern, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, terroristic, jihadistic, and suicidal version of it. Fortunately, it appeals to only about 10 percent to 15 percent of Muslims, meaning that a substantial majority would prefer a more moderate version."

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/010540.html

Jonathan Schanzer is a Soref fellow at The Washington Institute, specializing in radical Islamic movements. Mr. Schanzer holds a bachelor's degree in international relations from Emory University and a master's degree in Middle East studies from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he wrote his master's thesis on the modern history of militant Islam. More recently he studied at the Arabic Language Institute of the American University in Cairo......"Consider bin Laden's own words. "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars...We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God." Adherents of militant Islam account for some 15-20 percent of the Muslim world."

http://www.meforum.org/article/168

2. What collateral damage? What is plainly clear is your lack of knowledge into this subject. Terrorists do not "hang out" with moderate Muslims. They hide within their own Radical element. They surround themselves with people who welcome their "martyrdom." What occurred here was hardly "collateral damage."

Lastly, until God comes down and fixes his screwed up world, judgement is afforded to who ever has the power to act. Be thankful, America has that power and our enemies do not.

 

[MSgt]

"4 or 5" is now 10?

No matter how badly you seem to be rallying for controversey and failure....even one terrorist was a victory. The rest were most probably Radical harborers, so they were guilty too.

 

[Stinger]

No matter how badly you seem to be rallying for controversey and failure....even one terrorist was a victory. The rest were most probably Radical harborers, so they were guilty too.

You know if I invited some mafioso's over to my house for dinner and the police showed up and shooting started....................I don't think I'd have a claim of "innocent bystander".

 

[Stinger]

"4 or 5" is now 10?

The printed report, versus the "Breaking News Story" this morning, says at least 4 and 10 - 12 invited. Apparently DNA testing is ongoing. And of course the other people there are at a minimum accessories to the fact.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Heh, how many times are they going to kill the No. 2 Al-Qaeda guy? This has to be at least the fourth or fifth time.

They seem to kill him about every time Bush starts taking another dive in the polls. Being that they supposedly found WMDs in Iraq at least every other day for the first few months of the war, I figure this guy is in for at least another 10 or 15 reported deaths.

 

[MSgt]

You know if I invited some mafioso's over to my house for dinner and the police showed up and shooting started....................I don't think I'd have a claim of "innocent bystander".

Correct. You wouldn't. You knew what you invited into your house and you payed for the company you kept. There are repercussions for everything. We can't run in the circles and then claim "innocence."

 

[AndrewC]

1. I guess these scholar's reports and studies are also "statistically invalid?" Don't stop here. Continue on and study what you obviously know so little of. There is such a wide margin between numbers because it is a difficult thing to narrow. All that can be done is to statistically use the Muslim countries (63), determine how much of that 90percent of the world's current conflicts involve Muslim countries and study the social structures within. How embarassing for you.....

Arnaud de Borchgrave - Senior Adviser and Director
Center for Strategic and International Studies...."One percent of 1.2 billion is 12 million Muslim fanatics who believe America is the Great Satan, fount of all evil, to be attacked and demolished. Moderate Islam has yet to find a voice that will roll back the extremists, a sort of Islamic Martin Luther [the original, not the one who misappropriated his name] or a Mohandas Gandhi."

http://www.grecoreport.com/radical_islam_rising.htm

And what percentage of Americans believe most Arabs are terrorists? I know in Arkansas that number would be very high. People fear what they don't understand. This goes for both sides of this so called war. These people did not have to die for their beliefs. There is always another way to achieve an objective. The American government simply chooses the easiest, most destructive path. One thing is sure. If anyone in that village was not against Americans before this attack. They are now.

 

[MSgt]

And what percentage of Americans believe most Arabs are terrorists? I know in Arkansas that number would be very high. People fear what they don't understand. This goes for both sides of this so called war. These people did not have to die for their beliefs. There is always another way to achieve an objective. The American government simply chooses the easiest, most destructive path. One thing is sure. If anyone in that village was not against Americans before this attack. They are now.

You would be reflecting on ignorant America as opposed to men of great education who have dedicated their lives studying these subjects. I assure you they don't just simply throw out numbers. Study for yourself and you will find an indepth wealth of knowledge and study from all politics, environments, and generations.

You are under a misunderstanding. These people are not dying for their beliefs. They are dying because they choose to kill and destroy in the name of their beliefs because of what we believe. Wake up. This is not a war against Islam. We have been ignoring this escalation of fundamentalism for decades despite their best efforts to be involved with us. 9/11 woke us up. If you would study, you would come to find that Islam is at war with itself for an identity and the moderate Muslims aren't lifting a finger. There are 1.2 billion Muslims world wide. There are 63 countries where Muslims are the majority and 90% of the worlds current conflicts involve Muslim countries. Out of that number it is estimated that between 12 and 150 million people are Radical. We are not at war against 1.2 billion people. We are at war with the Radical element, whether that means militarily or through IO.

You think that by killing civilians in our attacks, we simply turn other civilians against us? This is nonsense. Don't let your emotions drive you into rash opinions. Civilians who shield our enemies are already anti-American. But if our strikes against the masters of terror come to seem inevitable, those same civilians will turn against terrorists who try to use them as living shields -- as villagers in Afghanistan already have done. We have seen this in Iraq and in Indonesia as well.

As I have stated often enough, we cannot hug away a determined enemy.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And what percentage of Americans believe most Arabs are terrorists? I know in Arkansas that number would be very high. People fear what they don't understand. This goes for both sides of this so called war. These people did not have to die for their beliefs. There is always another way to achieve an objective. The American government simply chooses the easiest, most destructive path. One thing is sure. If anyone in that village was not against Americans before this attack. They are now.

If you knew a single thing about the goals of pan-Islamic fascism or radical Islam then you would know that this is not a 'so called war,' this is a real war against a very real and a very determined enemy with the explicit goal of destroying every Democratic state world wide and replacing them with theocratic Islamic states ruled by clerics and Sharia law. The fact of the matter is that you're the one who doesn't understand the enemy.

 

[MSgt]

If you knew a single thing about the goals of pan-Islamic fascism or radical Islam then you would know that this is not a 'so called war,' this is a real war against a very real and a very determined enemy with the explicit goal of destroying every Democratic state world wide and replacing them with theocratic Islamic states ruled by clerics and Sharia law. The fact of the matter is that you're the one who doesn't understand the enemy.

I love when these guys get on the site and parade their ignorance about. I feel like giving them a popsickle and sitting them down in front of the Nintendo 64 so the adults can talk.

 

[AndrewC]

You would be reflecting on ignorant America as opposed to men of great education who have dedicated their lives studying these subjects. I assure you they don't just simply throw out numbers. Study for yourself and you will find an indepth wealth of knowledge and study.

I was trying to point out that a large percentage of Americans see most Arabs as terrorists. Just like many Arabs view Americans as the devil. People who have these views are ignorant, not the poll takers.

You are under a misunderstanding. These people are not dying for their beliefs. They are dying because they choose to kill and destroy in the name of their beliefs. Wake up. This is not a war against Islam. If you would study, you would come to find that Islam is at war with itself for an identity and the moderate Muslims aren't lifting a finger. There are 1.2 billion Muslims world wide. There are 63 countries where Muslims are the majority and 90% of the worlds current conflicts involve Muslim countries. Out of that number it is estimated that between 12 and 150 million people are Radical. We are not at war against 1.2 billion people. We are at war with the Radical element, whether that means militarily or through IO.

Again you assume that the villagers, not the foreigners, have committed terrorist acts (I'm talking about actually killing, not rhetoric.). Their association with terrorists is criminal at best. They did not deserve to die for their beliefs. What has happened to innocent until proven guilty? We skipped the trial and went strait to the execution.

What has America ever done for Arabs? Do we deserve their cooperation for this problem of ours? You feel our country is innocent in all this. I don't believe this to be the case. Terrorist acts can't be justified, but the feelings of a large population within the world can't be ignored. For every terrorist there is a Muslim that does not like the US, but would not betray his religion by killing. The difference between a terrorist and the angry man on the street is that one commits murder and the other does not. Should the angry man on the street die, even though he is not a murderer?

You think that by killing civilians in our attacks, we simply turn other civilians against us? This is nonsense. Civilians who shield our enemies are already anti-American. But if our strikes against the masters of terror come to seem inevitable, those same civilians will turn against terrorists who try to use them as living shields -- as villagers in Afghanistan already have done. We have seen this in Iraq and in Indonesia as well.

Yes, many are fed up with terrorists. They are also fed up with America. Iraqis don't want to die. Whether by terrorists or American planes/bullets. They want to live. Most decent people loath terrorism. However this does not change their view of America. Iraqis will not thank us for killing their citizens or bringing the terrorists to their country. It is just not going to happen.

 

[Tashah]

I love when these guys get on the site and parade their ignorance about. I feel like giving them a popsickle and sitting them down in front of the Nintendo 64 so the adults can talk.

Be sure to make that a red, white, and blue popsickle lol. LimaCharlie Gunny.

 

[MSgt]

Again you assume that the villagers, not the foreigners, have committed terrorist acts (I'm talking about actually killing, not rhetoric.). Their association with terrorists is criminal at best. They did not deserve to die for their beliefs. What has happened to innocent until proven guilty? We skipped the trial and went strait to the execution.

Do you even know what the target was? It was not a village. You must understand that there is no cure for Radical Islam and you must also understand the religion in which it is based. This is not about diplomatic table manners where we go into a foreign country with a search warrent and arrest the criminals. The Radical element is indeed as guilty as the terrorists they cheer for. This is not whether we have a choice on a war of attrition - we're in one. One where our enemy raises their children to hate and cheer for murderers or become one themselves. This poroblem is getting exponentially larger. For an idea of how large - in 25 years, the Saudi population is expected to grow by 93%. Keep in mind that this is just Saudi Arabia. There are 62 other countries with expected high population growths.

I guess all of the prisoners we have in Gitmo, Iraq, Jordan, Indonesia, India, Bosnia, and Israel should be released, because though we caught them after they graduated from their extremists camps......they're innocent until proven guilty. Maybe we should wait for the inevitable attack on our troops or on one of our "allies" soil. Maybe we shoulod wait until they drop a couple planes in your city. You know....that way they are guilty.:roll:

What has America ever done for Arabs? Do we deserve their cooperation for this problem of ours? You feel our country is innocent in all this. I don't believe this to be the case. Terrorist acts can't be justified, but the feelings of a large population within the world can't be ignored. For every terrorist there is a Muslim that does not like the US, but would not betray his religion by killing. The difference between a terrorist and the angry man on the street is that one commits murder and the other does not. Should the angry man on the street die, even though he is not a murderer?

What has America ever done for Arabs? Are you kidding me with this garbage? Do your own homework. I'm willing to bet you have no idea as to our guilt in the rising of Islamic Radicalism. We are guilty of one definate thing, though I bet it completely escapes you. Enlighten us. The feelings of the large populations of the world are as ignorant as many Americans. They pass on the same old rhetoric of the Arab masses and their Palestinian tools.

...And again....you are showing not to have any idea into what this subject is about. You assume that the rest of the world is raised in the same manner in which Americans are. Are we all raised with the same mannerisms, temperments, respects, and morals? The same social and political freedoms? You also seem to like to believe that we are at war with a few rogues of Islam.

Yes, many are fed up with terrorists. They are also fed up with America. Iraqis don't want to die. Whether by terrorists or American planes/bullets. They want to live. Most decent people loath terrorism. However this does not change their view of America. Iraqis will not thank us for killing their citizens or bringing the terrorists to their country. It is just not going to happen.

It's not about thanking us. It's about rolling up their sleeves and fixing their civilization in the Middle East. It's about recognizing that we are not to blame for their self-inflicted societal failures. In the Arab world, the narcotic of choice is blame. This disease has spread throughout the Middle East and onto the fringe outposts. Your insight to this problem is horribly naive.


You should do yourself a favor and study the region and religion. I'm not in the mood to re-invent the wheel. If you want a class ask for it, otherwise, here is your popsickle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assuming that Al-Zawahiri wasn't killed, will anyone on the Right accuse the Bush Administration of sending some drone to shoot missles at camels as they have accused Clinton of lobbing cruise missles at camels when he tried to hit OBL in Afghanistan?

No.

But, if they do - will anyone on the left defend Bush's efforts as they did Clinton's?

Of course not.

Your point was...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heh, how many times are they going to kill the No. 2 Al-Qaeda guy? This has to be at least the fourth or fifth time.

You can kill the #2 any number of times, as each time you kill him, he is replaced.

 

[MSgt]

You can kill the #2 any number of times, as each time you kill him, he is replaced.

EXACTLY!!!!!!

This is like arresting the crack dealer on the corner and claiming that you have effectively cleaned up that street. Never mind that a new crack dealer rolls in the next day.

The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists and we are doing it well; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time. This is what a democracy in the middle of the Middle East is offering us.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

EXACTLY!!!!!!

This is like arresting the crack dealer on the corner and claiming that you have effectively cleaned up that street. Never mind that a new crack dealer rolls in the next day.

The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists and we are doing it well; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time. This is what a democracy in the middle of the Middle East is offering us.

a a a two Democracies. And let's not forget that Jordan has engaged in Democratic reforms and their king has even said to other nations in the region something to the effect that: "the middle east is changing either voluntarily initiate Democratic reform or reform may be forced upon you." Also the Palestinian/Israeli problem seems to be the closest that it ever has to being solved and I heard that the Palestinians are actually going to have real elections (not sure on this one though). Our main focus now needs to be on Iran if that S.O.B. president of their's is able to obtain nuclear arms he could easily destabalize the tennous peace in Israel/Palestine and the entire region for that matter the only thing that we got going for us in Iran is that apparently the majority of their population is young, informed, and anxious for Democratic reform we need to lean strongly on the present regime and sew the seeds for revolution.

 

[MSgt]

a a a two Democracies. And let's not forget that Jordan has engaged in Democratic reforms and their king has even said to other nations in the region something to the effect that: "the middle east is changing either voluntarily initiate Democratic reform or reform may be forced upon you." Also the Palestinian/Israeli problem seems to be the closest that it ever has to being solved and I heard that the Palestinians are actually going to have real elections (not sure on this one though). Our main focus now needs to be on Iran if that S.O.B. president of their's is able to obtain nuclear arms he could easily destabalize the tennous peace in Israel/Palestine and the entire region for that matter the only thing that we got going for us in Iran is that apparently the majority of their population is young, informed, and anxious for Democratic reform we need to lean strongly on the present regime and sew the seeds for revolution.

Good things are happeneing in Jordan and Syria and despite nuclear issues with Iran, good things are happening in there too.

This is where our current IO war is doing it's job. We have to help these countries as "indirectly" as possible.

 

[Cremaster77]

No.

But, if they do - will anyone on the left defend Bush's efforts as they did Clinton's?

Of course not.

Your point was...?

No they won't. And that will be hypocritical, just as it is hypocritical of the Right to give Bush a pass when he shoots and misses. That's the point, since you need me to spell it out for you.

Bush was right to hit that house in Pakistan just as Clinton was right to send the cruise missles into Afghanistan. You can't fault Clinton for not sending in a full division to try to take out OBL if you don't fault Bush for doing the same thing this time around. Clinton's response was appropriate in the context of the time. We were not at war, did not have troops nor Predator drones (as far as I know) flying freely around Afghanistan. Our military was attacked overseas and the public would not have supported a full blown military operation into what was then a sovereign nation. Fast forward to today where 9/11 changed what the public will accept, we are at war, we do have troops and Predator drones in Pakistan. You could argue that Bush had even more reason and opportunity to send in a squad then Clinton did but chose instead to use the drone.

 

[Cremaster77]

Good things are happeneing in Jordan and Syria and despite nuclear issues with Iran, good things are happening in there too.

This is where our current IO war is doing it's job. We have to help these countries as "indirectly" as possible.

I agree with you there. Which is why it frustrates me so much that the Bush administration did such a poor job of post-war planning. Invading Iraq was a golden opportunity to create true example of what a democracy can be in the middle of one of the most unstable region in the world. Instead, we had a "catastrophic success", thinking that we would be greeted as heroes, expecting that we would be awash in Iraqi oil money, expecting that centuries of racial hatred could be forgotten simply by showing Iraqis how great the good ol' American way is. The opportunity was there to really influence the region in a positive way and the Bush administration was so enamoured with itself that it lost that opportunity.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I agree with you there. Which is why it frustrates me so much that the Bush administration did such a poor job of post-war planning. Invading Iraq was a golden opportunity to create true example of what a democracy can be in the middle of one of the most unstable region in the world. Instead, we had a "catastrophic success", thinking that we would be greeted as heroes, expecting that we would be awash in Iraqi oil money, expecting that centuries of racial hatred could be forgotten simply by showing Iraqis how great the good ol' American way is. The opportunity was there to really influence the region in a positive way and the Bush administration was so enamoured with itself that it lost that opportunity.

What are you talking about? The elections were a great success and the Sunni's have decided to come to the table and even the Sunni insurgency is begining to come to the table, the real problem lies in the die hard foriegn insurgents who came to Iraq to kill the infidel and destabalize Iraq, the Iraqi populace knows this and they are not on the side of Zarqawi they are on the side of a free Iraq, insurgencies can be defeated it just takes time usually up to a decade and it has to be done by the Iraqi security forces themselves and like Bush said as they stand up we'll stand down and that's exactly what is happening as more and more Iraqi security forces are trained the more you'll hear about troop withdrawl.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What are you talking about? The elections were a great success and the Sunni's have decided to come to the table and even the Sunni insurgency is begining to come to the table, the real problem lies in the die hard foriegn insurgents who came to Iraq to kill the infidel and destabalize Iraq, the Iraqi populace knows this and they are not on the side of Zarqawi they are on the side of a free Iraq, insurgencies can be defeated it just takes time usually up to a decade and it has to be done by the Iraqi security forces themselves and like Bush said as they stand up we'll stand down and that's exactly what is happening as more and more Iraqi security forces are trained the more you'll hear about troop withdrawl.

Those foreign insurgents make up less than 10% of the insurgency. Maybe things will start getting better. I hope they will. However, attacks are on the rise, not declining. Until there is some level of security in Iraq, all the elections wont amount to anything, and you cant have security with an ongoing insurgency. Hence the Catch 22.

I might add that when polled, 45% of Iraqis believe that attacks on U.S. forces are justified, and nearly 80% want us out now.

 

[Cremaster77]

What are you talking about? The elections have been complete successes and the Sunni's have decided to come to the table and even the Sunni insurgency is begining to come to the table, the real problem lies in the die hard foriegn insurgents who came to Iraq to kill the infidel and destabalize Iraq, the Iraqi populace knows this and they are not on the side of Zarqawi they are on the side of a free Iraq, insurgencies can be defeated it just takes time usually up to a decade and it has to be done by the Iraqi security forces themselves and like Bush said as they stand up we'll stand down and that's exactly what is happening as more and more Iraqi security forces are trained the more you'll hear about troop withdrawl.

The Sunnis are at the table? Last I heard, the Sunnis were threatening to block the new government if the results weren't changed. The majority Shia are electing hardline religioius extremists who will turn the country away from Democracy. The Kurds are looking to break away the first chance they get to establish an Independent country.

This is success? I suggest you stop listening to the filtered results of one of Bush's scripted town halls. Iraq is moving away from democracy and entering a civil war. Bush is looking to get out of Iraq and withdraw troops as you have suggested, even if he won't admit it. No way has he shown the ability or desire to make post-war Iraq work.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Those foreign insurgents make up less than 10% of the insurgency. Maybe things will start getting better. I hope they will. However, attacks are on the rise, not declining. Until there is some level of security in Iraq, all the elections wont amount to anything, and you cant have security with an ongoing insurgency. Hence the Catch 22.

I might add that when polled, 45% of Iraqis believe that attacks on U.S. forces are justified, and nearly 80% want us out now.

Oh really a poll you say? Well don't that beat all, has the dually elected government of Iraq asked us to leave?