Zarqawi Dead

[Butchers Bill]

Check out the F-16 video on CNN. I'm surprised there was a finger left to print, much less a head to identify.

I wonder how many civilians were killed or injured by those two 500 pound bombs, if any?  Not that they matter, of course.

U.S.A.!! U.S.A.!!

Let me guess...you would have prefered we send in 15-20 Marines to get slaughtered in house to house fighting, only to let the guy slip away again?

[Diomedes]

If it meant lower risk of civilian casualty, yes that's what I would prefer.  Except instead of your assinine ending, I'd prefer the Marines get him.

Honorable:  Risking the lives of your soldiers to get the bad guys.
Honorable:  Risking the lives of your soldiers to do so with as little risk as possible to civilians.
Not Honorable:  Dropping 1000 lbs of bombs from 30,000 feet, and so what if anyone gets in the way.

If we really meant to secure the safety of Iraq, we'd put 750,000 U.S. soldiers in there, lose a hell of a lot more of them, and lock that shtein down.  We'd send 300 guys at that safe house instead of a bomb.  We'd act like men.


Bombing is terrorism.  All bombing. 

[Rome]

 

[fansince61]

If it meant lower risk of civilian casualty, yes that's what I would prefer.  Except instead of your assinine ending, I'd prefer the Marines get him.

Honorable:  Risking the lives of your soldiers to get the bad guys.
Honorable:  Risking the lives of your soldiers to do so with as little risk as possible to civilians.
Not Honorable:  Dropping 1000 lbs of bombs from 30,000 feet, and so what if anyone gets in the way.

If we really meant to secure the safety of Iraq, we'd put 750,000 U.S. soldiers in there, lose a hell of a lot more of them, and lock that shtein down.  We'd send 300 guys at that safe house instead of a bomb.  We'd act like men.

Bombing is terrorism.  All bombing. 

War Sucks....it is impossible to fight one without civilian casualties.  I would imagine we have more civilian casualities in the US from the police dept's each year then we have in Iraq.

[Butchers Bill]

If it meant lower risk of civilian casualty, yes that's what I would prefer.  Except instead of your assinine ending, I'd prefer the Marines get him.

Honorable:  Risking the lives of your soldiers to get the bad guys.
Honorable:  Risking the lives of your soldiers to do so with as little risk as possible to civilians.
Not Honorable:  Dropping 1000 lbs of bombs from 30,000 feet, and so what if anyone gets in the way.

If we really meant to secure the safety of Iraq, we'd put 750,000 U.S. soldiers in there, lose a hell of a lot more of them, and lock that shtein down.  We'd send 300 guys at that safe house instead of a bomb.  We'd act like men.


Bombing is terrorism.  All bombing. 

So wait...any technological advance in warfare is for sissy's?  So when the Chinese invented gunpowder and used it to create a gun, they were just a bunch of girly-men?   

[reese125]

If we really meant to secure the safety of Iraq, we'd put 750,000 U.S. soldiers in there

there is a very easy answer behind this statment Dio--Im hoping you figure it out on your own

[Phanatic]

Turns out we were a bunch of torrorists in WWII the I guess. Those bombs weren't even guided...

[Butchers Bill]

War Sucks....it is impossible to fight one without civilian casualties.  I would imagine we have more civilian casualities in the US from the police dept's each year then we have in Iraq.

Not only that, but house to house fighting would have dramatically INCREASED civilian casualties. 

[fansince61]

Turns out we were a bunch of torrorists in WWII the I guess. Those bombs weren't even guided...

WWII, far and away, holds the record for the most civilian casualities of all time

[Phanatic]

Turns out we were a bunch of terrorists in WWII the I guess. Those bombs weren't even guided...

WWII, far and away, holds the record for the most civilian causalities of all time

Yeah I think bombing major cities was an accepted part of warfare in that time. So with that said we have come a long way towards trying to do everything we can to limit civilian casualties. Our enemies don't play by the same rules.

[Diomedes]

So wait...any technological advance in warfare is for sissy's?

Yeah, that's what I said.  But he, thanks for reminding me that you aren't worth talking to...I forget easily.  It's the optimist in me..maybe this time he won't act like an icehole.....oh..nope.  Okay, moving along then.

Turns out we were a bunch of torrorists in WWII the I guess. Those bombs weren't even guided...

Yep.  Firebombs and nuclear bombs, conventional bombs.  Nothing honorable about any of that.  We should be ashamed by it and swear to ourselves to avoid it at all costs in the future. 

So with that said we have come a long way towards trying to do everything we can to limit civilian casualties. Our enemies don't play by the same rules.

Agreed, it's much better than it every has been.  But that's no reason to stop trying to get better.  And the fact that our enemies don't play by those rules is all the better reason to make sure we do.  We are afterall claiming the moral high ground...even as we stoop the level of our enemies.  Abu Graib, Haditha, "smart" bombs, running over civilians with humvees.
We'd be a lot more credible if we risked our necks more to save theirs.

[phillymic2000]

We do risk our soldiers lives, by holding them to rules of engagement, and thanks for convicting the troops in Haditha before the investigation has finished. Our soldiers have rules, religious sensitvity training, and I am sure many other trainings along with that. Our military tries it's best to be as PC in everyway possible. In any conflict you will have civilian deaths. So lets say no bombs were used in that attack, and we went in with only ground troops, if we raid that house and good old Al has surrounded himself with civilians and a couple are killed or injured, what then? we are still killing innocent lives and our troops are at a higher risk then with using our technology. Should we just leave the bad guys alone as long as they are hiding in civilian areas?

[Diomedes]

The snake has grown a new head.

Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi takes over where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi left off.

al-Qaida in Iraq Vows to Continue Holy War

Thursday June 8, 2006 12:31 PM


CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida in Iraq confirmed the death of its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and vowed it will continue its ``holy war'' in a statement posted on the Web on Thursday.

``We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahed sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,'' said the statement, signed by ``Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi,'' identified as the deputy ``emir'' or leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

``The death of our leaders is life for us. It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme,'' it said.

Good luck beating these guys by killing them.

[phillymic2000]

We'd send 300 guys at that safe house instead of a bomb.  We'd act like men.

Could you please explain your idea on this one? because that says to me, forget the bombs and other technology, lets go in with guns only.

[phillymic2000]

Good luck beating these guys by killing them.

Well what do you advise? leave them be? get out of Iraq? seriously, what is your plan to beat them.