Do we really know that al-Zawahiri was the target in the first place?

I don't know for sure but the initial reports I read said he was planning to eat dinner at this home. Now, if the gov't went ahead with the attacks assuming there must be other high level operatives there, I think they would be justified, and something I hope they will not shy away from.

If that is the case, then Art's contention that they were purposely using innocent people as a shield has a lot of merit and we should be clearly saying that as quickly as possible, to limit the political fall-out.

I guess my contention is not so much with the attack, but with the idea that we were successful, despite missing our intended target, assuming of course al-Zawahiri was the target.

Not that I think we can ever appease the radicals but a lot of the moderate views in the Middle East need assurance that we are not just dropping bombs and hoping for the best. Our allegiance with Pakistan is very important to our security and we can't mess up.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

So, if the intel says he's eating at a particular restaurant, we can blow it up (to heck with the other patrons)? Or if the intel says he's eating in an apartment in a particular apartment building, we can blow that up (to heck with the other inhabitants)?

Life is so cheap, when it's not "ours".

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Those cases are more troublesome. This was the case of inviting th AQ leadership to dine at the house and have a planning session in surroundings with supporters.

Then, yes, take them all out.

You know all about this stuff. Tell me why they can't use the Predator to monitor the perps and send in forces to capture them for their intel value? If we're willing to bomb Pakistan, surely we don't care if they object to our forces walking on their soil?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Those cases are more troublesome. This was the case of inviting th AQ leadership to dine at the house and have a planning session in surroundings with supporters.

First time in a while Art but I agree with you.

BUT, we have to stop with the propaganda of trying to justify attacks, after the fact, and after we fail in our intended mission despite the eventual outcome. The people who got things wrong have to be held accountable and we have to see how our intelligence "failures" can be corrected going forward.

It is a very difficult situation we are dealing with and this is the part of the war on terror that is not going to be easy to swallow but if we continue to spin things for our purposes, we are not going to get anywhere. If it is true that the leadership surrounded themselves with civilians, as you originally suggested, this fact has to be made public or once again we are going to come out on the short end. I guess it really wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I have a lot of misgivings with the way this administration handles their spin and even more from our continued poor intelligence but most people accept the difficult situation we are in.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

"Tell me why they can't use the Predator to monitor the perps and send in forces to capture them for their intel value? "

Several reasons why they might not (not can't, just might not choose to do that).

- You have to get forces onto the ground, which requires that you fly them in or drive them in or whatever, all of which is easier to detect than a remote control airplane flying around.

- You have to put forces at risk. The primary reason to use UAVs at all is because we don't put pilots or soldiers at risk. No chance of U.S. casualties in the mission unless you count a sore thumb from the remote operator.

- More lead time required because you have to get people in to do the job instead of seeing what you want and shooting it right when you're ready.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"If we're willing to bomb Pakistan, surely we don't care if they object to our forces walking on their soil?"

I don't understand how that would follow, your use of the word "surely" notwithstanding.

Are you serious?

What about if it was a couple of Al-Qaida bad guys and 20 civilians? Or just some guys who would like to hang out with Al-Qaida bad guys? Or guys who cheer Al-Qaida bad guys? Or guys who live in a village which Al-Qaida bad guys might visit one day? Or some guys who live in a village that looks like a village which Al-Qaida bad guys might visit one day? Or guys who look like Al-Qaida bad guys? As long as some guys get killed - more for psychological effect than anything - is it still a case of who cares?

You should care if the US's tactics descend to same level as those it is fighting.

The entire world has been completely and thoroughly warned that the sheltering of terrorists can have consequences.

 In Reply To

Who cares, as long as some Qaeda bad guys were killed. More for the psychological effect than anything, mind you. Who knows? Maybe the folks in that part of the world will stop inviting these pinheads to dinner and then we'll be able to starve 'em out ;-) T.



Are you serious?



Why would you think that I wasn't? If you have bad guys sitting down and dining with you, you've put yourself and anybody close to you in mortal peril. And it sure doesn't look as if they were supping with the AQ guys because they had no choice in the matter, either.

Sorry, but in my experience that's going to get you snuffed.

T.

1) I think as a nation, we should be mindful of other nations right to exist. It is our country trying to spread freedom around the world, so other countries should also have the freedom to govern themselves as they see fit. Right?

When put forward in a general way, this is of course correct. But with everything of this nature especially when we're talking human nature and international politics, the basic principle can never be applied in a 'pure' form. Everything has to be put into context. The black and white areas are minimal whereas the the grey areas occupy the largest proportion by far. So the principle you mentioned becomes a guiding principle and not the definitive practice.

The way I see it, freedom is about choice. These people have a choice. The choice is choose a democratic type system and attitude which will allow them the immediate potential to flourish and GET ALONG, or choose to be on the side of their fundamentalist roots and present themselves as a threat or supporters of those who perpetuate the threats.

Whatever the reasons, even if they don't know any better, can't know any better, will not know any better, the fact is we really can't change a large proportion of them, we still have to contain and attempt to eliminate the threat first and foremost.

2) "Well, at least you agree that we should be consulting the government."

Wherever there exists a workable way of reducing the threat, fighting the threat or influencing better behaviour and mentalities, without the use of military force, obviously methods should be used first without question.

3) "But, I thought Osama was no longer relevant, and in fact, like Colonel Sanders, not really important to the organization as a whole. If that is the case, why do we have to kill children?"

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Osama is very relevant, arguably still the most prominent figure in this fight against terror, because of the way he's percieved by the Muslim world and the perps. Just in the past day or so, there has been an audio release supposedly (yet to be confirmed) of him through Aljazeera. The comments made on this audio have pretty much rocked the world a little with 9/11 type predictions. The same type he made leading up to 9/11.

4) "I'm all for going after al-Qaeda, but to celebrate when we kill innocent people makes me ashamed. At least we can show respect when those in harms way are harmed. "

Nobody is celebrating unavoidable collateral damage to innocents. The USA and the West in general always do try to limit civillian casualty. Which in contrast is the total opposit of wht 'they' are so intent on doing.

But as I said, in some targets many of those children are simply going to grow up the same as their adult counterparts anyway. As bad as that sounds ...

Anybody who is bum-buddies with them Al Qaeda guys are just a very small step in becoming one themselves. There's really no sitting on the fence thing when it comes to this terror thing. People either are for it or against.

3) "But, I thought Osama was no longer relevant, and in fact, like Colonel Sanders, not really important to the organization as a whole. If that is the case, why do we have to kill children?"

I'm surprised to hear you say that. Osama is very relevant, arguably still the most prominent figure in this fight against terror, because of the way he's percieved by the Muslim world and the perps. Just in the past day or so, there has been an audio release supposedly (yet to be confirmed) of him through Aljazeera. The comments made on this audio have pretty much rocked the world a little with 9/11 type predictions. The same type he made leading up to 9/11.


That's funny. My original point about 3) was in sarcasm because prior to yesterday, almost all the pro-admin people were saying how irrelevent OBL was to the war on terror, even Bush himself said as much after 4.5 years of not being able to find him. You are stating my point exactly because I think he is THE most important figure because of what he stands for. It's that Hussein guy we were so determined to get that was not that relevent.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Agreed,

But since then Hussien has become rellavant and Iraq even more so. No point crying over spilt milk. Rather we need to just mop it up before it goes more rancid.

1) "... I think it is important when hunting monsters to be sure you don't become a monster yourself."

I think that even a simpleton like me finds your comment way too simplistic. Human nature is such, life is such, history will always repeat. Certain things have to be resolved with force and certain people understand only the language of force. In this current situation we need to know when other options are exhausted and have the ciommitment to use force when it is necessary. It's really not a monster story.

2) I'm not sure if your saying that doing humanitarian effort for the earthquake victims is useless since they are going to grow up to be terrorists, if it is I am disappointed.

Don't be. Humanitarian work is all ood and kudos to those putting themselves out doing it. There are exceptions like that dumb activist Britt girl who got herself and her aging parents kidnapped in Palestine. My point on this was to illustrate how ungrateful and ignorant some of those who are helped can be and how ironical situation is all because of the influence of Islam. Here in the mountains of Kashmir people from the West are busting their guts, spending huge sums of money and we've got the religious leaders teching them people that the disastour is due to Allah punishing them for cohorting with the Westerners. And don't for a moment believe that these simple folk who do their ritual prayers five times a day starting in the wee hours when you are I are still in la-la land don't believe what their Imams tell them.

This is just another indication of where the problem lies. In a nutshell all efforts need to be used to identify, hunt down and eliminates terrorists and particularly terrorist leaders. Equally as important is to close down all radical religious centers arrest any religious leaders who preach poison and this qualifies a whole bunch of them around the world. Lock them up and throw away the keys.

I know that this will touch a raw nerve and sensitivities of those who hold so dear democratic ideals, free speach and all that. But the fact remains, where is this terrorism born from if not the Mosques and religious schools? Even educated Muslims themselves admit that this is the root of the problem.

Here's an analogy. In a Malaria infested area you can't get rid of the diseasse by killing a mosquito or two and some may not even be carrying the disease. To be effective the stagnant water pools, ie spawning grounds needs to be got rid of. Both Musharraf and some of the Indonesian leadership have started to do this because as Muslims close to the problem they know. !f the problem escalates in their countries they will widen their moping up of radical Islamic centers and teachers. This is what happened in Pakistan after the London bombings and in Indonesia after the Australian Embassy bomb.

Secondly the mass of these people are simple minded. Forget about free speach, freedom of religion etc.They either get educated in Islamic Fundamentalism or educated properly. Which is better for them and the world at large? They themselves would tend to go with the flow and are really nort qualifiesd to know any better until they actually do get some proper education. That religion is a vile curse which starts brain washing on the young'uns and dressing them up like ninjas the moment they are old enough to walk.

3) "Besides the the religion maIalso think we need to be respectful of Musharraf's tenuous position in the matter as leader helping an unpopular ally. Let's run a little scenario, Musharraf's people lose faith in him (including the intelligence and security services), Musharraf is killed, the population (meaning armed tribal factions and military) install an Isalmist Caliph in his place, fun and games ensue. So lets help the guy out a bit."

Yes we need to work with allies in the Muslim world wherever we can and be mindful of the problems they face. But the moment they are oussted by their people for radical leadership even if it's just out of ignorance, they become dangerous and all bets are off. Case in point Iran. If their bad behaviour escalates and their capabilities becomes more developed, what do you do?

4) ... I think we need to develop more HUMINT on the ground. People who don't like you don't make the best sources of information. The normal everyday citizens need to think that we are trying to help them (see earthquake relief children playing with models of US helicopters) and not spread US domination throughout the region

You think giving them kids helicopter toys to play with will make any difference when giving them food, shelter and saving their sorry butts doesn't? Those Muslims who don't like us never will. As for whether the influence spreads or is contained and reduced, the key is in the elimination of the spawning grounds and the Imams that reside there ....., mentioned above.

I like what old Dubya has to say about this whole Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran.....you name it, thing: (and please excuse the shameless jingoism.....sometimes, I can't help myself ;-)

Yes and I'll sleep better at night.