NationStates Jolt Archive

Breaking News: AL QAEDA'S NO. 2 TERROR MASTERMIND IN IRAQ KILLED IN BAGHDAD RAID BY U.S. SPECIAL FORCES SUNDAY, DEFENSE OFFICIALS SAY

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170467,00.html

More to come on this developing story.

And in other news:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/26/iraq.main/index.html

Breaking News: AL QAEDA'S NO. 2 TERROR MASTERMIND IN IRAQ KILLED IN BAGHDAD RAID BY U.S. SPECIAL FORCES SUNDAY, DEFENSE OFFICIALS SAY

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170467,00.html

More to come on this developing story.
YEEHAW!

At least they're getting something done.
And in other news:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast...main/index.html
That took a quick wit. Nice.

And in other news:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/26/iraq.main/index.html

Well that didn't take long for those who are against the war to invade a good news thread with bad news.

Why don't you start your own thread on this?

Well that didn't take long for those who are against the war to invade a good news thread with bad news.

Why don't you start your own thread on this?

Cause this one's here and no one's using it? We only have one server, you know, and shouldn't clutter it up with too much junk.

great news... Zarqawi's next.

Well that didn't take long for those who are against the war to invade a good news thread with bad news.

Why don't you start your own thread on this?
because they cannot believe that anything good is ever being done in Iraq.

Anyone wanna place bets on whether the slaying of the #2 terrorist in Iraq makes it onto the evening news?

I bet it won't... they too want to sabotage the war effort by only reporting negative results.

because they cannot believe that anything good is ever being done in Iraq.

Sigh, such lies. I believe there's plenty of good coming out of Iraq, I just believe that, A) we've heard things along this line before that later turned out to be not so important and, B) the bad still coming out of Iraq far outweighs the good. Someday, this may change. Not at the moment, however.

what actually disturbs me is that this news, which should be, like, front cover news everywhere, is not to be found on cnn...i just looked..and i can't find any of this on yahoo news either..nor on the german news..so i'm somewhat sceptical.

because they cannot believe that anything good is ever being done in Iraq.

then they're just being stubborn...

Saddam ousted: good

Iraqis go to the polls with more than one option on the ballot: good

US trying to defend the good guys in Iraq by killing/detaining insurgents/terrorists : good

Iraq with either (not sure) a passed Constitution or one in the works: good

who was believed to have been in charge of the financing of terrorist cells in the war-torn country, was killed during a raid in Baghdad Sunday. Azzam is thought to be the top deputy to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

LOL

I am somehow sceptical of the "#2 in Iraq" claims.

Even if he is, I am not sure if it will make any dent. Even Zarqawi's elimination won't make much of a dent. It will make a dent in Bush's approval ratings maybe, but not in Iraq. :)

Remember the "Ba'athists are doing this, once we capture Saddam it will reduce" line of argument bandied about before Saddam's capture.

Anywayz..It is being thought now that there is a rift between Zarqawi and OBL because of Zarqawi's repeated targetting of shia civilians (which was not part of the AQ franchise contract that he signed with OBL)

what actually disturbs me is that this news, which should be, like, front cover news everywhere, is not to be found on cnn...i just looked..and i can't find any of this on yahoo news either..nor on the german news..so i'm somewhat sceptical.

Indeed.

Meh, perhaps it is true. If so, great. If not, typical.

Anyone wanna place bets on whether the slaying of the #2 terrorist in Iraq makes it onto the evening news?

I bet it won't... they too want to sabotage the war effort by only reporting negative results.

Yes, THEY do. Do you think THEY will break into your house and steal your Fox News coffee mug?

U.S. Special Forces killed Al Qaeda's (search) No. 2 terror mastermind in Iraq (search), Defense Department officials say.

FOX News has confirmed that Abu Azzam (search), who was believed to have been in charge of the financing of terrorist cells in the war-torn country, was killed during a raid in Baghdad Sunday. Azzam is thought to be the top deputy to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), Iraq's most wanted terrorist.

This is most definitely good news.

Well now...huh.

great news... Zarqawi's next.

I hate to rain on that particular parade... but where did anyone see that al-Zarqawi is actually in league with Bin Laden or the supposed organisation al-Qaeda? (apart from their common hatred of the US- but that doesn't mean squat really :D )

As far as I know, they detest each other- and were never even fighting with each other in Afghanistan. (Bin Laden being based in the East, and al-Zarqawi being based independently in the West)

Great one down- and only 900 other independent cells to be taken down :p

Good for us!

I just hope he really is a mastermind in Al-Qaeda and not a made-up figure so that the Bush administration can bolster people's confidence in Iraq...

I hate to rain on that particular parade... but where did anyone see that al-Zarqawi is actually in league with Bin Laden or the supposed organisation al-Qaeda? (apart from their common hatred of the US- but that doesn't mean squat really :D )

Apparently he is now since Bin Laden told him to leave Iraq!

*snip*

You know what they say about having common enemies. "The enemy of thy enemy is thy friend"

Sigh, such lies. I believe there's plenty of good coming out of Iraq, I just believe that, A) we've heard things along this line before that later turned out to be not so important and, B) the bad still coming out of Iraq far outweighs the good. Someday, this may change. Not at the moment, however.Lies... really? then why post such news here if you felt no compulsion to place bad news after good news?

A) it won't stop the terrorism right away, but by eating away at their leadership, we also stand a chance of fracturing and desolving the terror cells. and it's one less mastermind to worry about.

B) since there are more bad news, then good, then why dampen the spirits of those who want the good news and not the bad. It's like saying Happy Birthday... you are now one year closer to dying. not really appropriate.

In 1996, the big cheese in Chechnya was killed by a Russian missile that homed in on his cellphone signal.

Nine years later, the insurgency continues under constantly changing leadership.

Meh.

Time will tell. This probably only hurt a little. As one of the commanders in the field had said they will still fight. Not exact: Killing them is like a cellphone network. You take out one relay and they appear somewhere else.

Al-Z would have been better news......

Apparently he is now since Bin Laden told him to leave Iraq!



You know what they say about having common enemies. "The enemy of thy enemy is thy friend"


Funny, the angle i would have thought was this:

Before Iraq- we ALL knew who BL was...
Zarqawi? Who the hell is that?! :confused:

Iraq is Z stomping ground- he's making a success of it (from their perspective obviously). BL has little to do with organising it (as far as the intel goes) and releasing a video every time something happens 'claiming' they did it- doesn't mean they actually did. They'd probably try to claim Katrina for all we know! :p

Z was showing up BL- embarrassing him by showing that there is another top dog in town. A rival for influence and followers. BL- not like. 'Orders' Z to leave- since Z and BL never were with each other in the first place- Z says :foff:

Its a rivalry between their two leaders and their 2 groups.

Or maybe i'm reading too much into their personalities... :D

Lies... really? then why post such news here if you felt no compulsion to place bad news after good news?

Perspective, perhaps?


A) it won't stop the terrorism right away, but by eating away at their leadership, we also stand a chance of fracturing and desolving the terror cells. and it's one less mastermind to worry about.

Haven't even determined exactly what sort of leadership figure this represented yet.


B) since there are more bad news, then good, then why dampen the spirits of those who want the good news and not the bad. It's like saying Happy Birthday... you are now one year closer to dying. not really appropriate.

Again, perspective. We are there, we have to stay there until the job is finished, but we can never forget we are there because we were lied to and what we did was illegal.

You know whats funny?

CNN is on at my house as long as i'm home, I don't sit there WATCHING it the whole time, but it's on behind me when i'm on the computer, and if I hear anything other than talking about the disaster zone in N.O. I turn around. Well, I didn't even KNOW this until now.

CNN = Clinton News Network

well..DOD's not having it on their news section either..

In 1996, the big cheese in Chechnya was killed by a Russian missile that homed in on his cellphone signal.

Nine years later, the insurgency continues under constantly changing leadership.

Exactly.

Only in movies can a James Bond save the day by killing the #1 of the evil SPECTRE.

In 1996, the big cheese in Chechnya was killed by a Russian missile that homed in on his cellphone signal.

Nine years later, the insurgency continues under constantly changing leadership.

You cannot compare the revolt in Chechnya to what is going on in Iraq. There is no comparison between the two. What is going on in Chechnya is really a war for independence. They don't want to be a part of the Russian Confederacy.

In Iraq, you have terrorists that don't want to see a democracy succeed in the Middle East because it'll erode their power.

The killing/capturing of individual terrorists is really not that relevent to the long-term situation, although I can see why the President and his spokespeople at Fox might like to publicise it. It's the antagonism between sections of the Muslim and Western worlds that fuels this terrorism, not a few individual leaders. As long as Muslims have good reason to be angry at Western governments, there will always be replacements for dead nd captured terrorists.

CNN = Clinton News Network

He has been gone for over five years. Let it go. Take a breath. Relax......

I find no trace of this story on the BBC either....

Hmmm....

great news... Zarqawi's next.

I hope so. He could use a break. Just look at the links he posted in his last letter...



This War Sucks

Iowahawk Guest Commentary
by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi
Senior VP, Al-Qaeda In Iraq (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/09/this_war_sucks.html)

What's crackalackin', y'all? I know it's been long-time-no-post, but I gotta tell you it's a little hard to keep up with the blogging when you're getting a daily enema from infidel Tomahawks. I knew that war is supposed to be hell, but dude -- this one is starting to totally fucking suck. Bigtime.

Case in point: after taking in the nards in Tel Afar (http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/09/only_days_after.html) last week, let's just say the martyr recruiting has gone a little slow. And speaking of 'a little slow,' can we talk about this latest busload of asswipes from Damascus? Jeez, I thought the Saudis were stupid, but these Syrians take the fucking baclava. Send one of these choads on a simple martydom operation against a Bagdhad collaborator elementary school, and they're like, "Durrrr, a thousand pardons effendi, I got lost! Doyyyy, can I have a martyrdom car with OnStar?" Then you end up having to print out MapQuest directions for them, which totally chews up printer cartridges, and they end up smeared along some desert freeway because they mistook the detonator button for cruise control.

Just between us, it was almost a relief when Team Satan and their Iraqi puppets greased a couple hundred of my lovable losers last week (http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/09/iraq_ops_flash.php). 'Thinning the herd,' if you know what I mean, and I suppose it probably raised our average insurgent IQ ten points. To 67, maybe. Still, word-of-mouth about this kind of missile strike crap gets around, and it has really screwed our recruiting. Even with the dipshit teenage mosque-rats in Damascus and Riyadh. It's gotten so bad, in fact, that we had to open up a recruiting office in France (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4261824.stm). I shit you not: reduced to recruiting Le. fucking. Fron-say.

Go ahead and laugh, sunshine. Yeah, it's humiliating, but these French dudes are actually kinda gung-ho. Until they get here and crap their pantalons after they realize that Le Monde might have exaggerated our success just a tad....

CLICKY (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/09/this_war_sucks.html)

You cannot compare the revolt in Chechnya to what is going on in Iraq. There is no comparison between the two. What is going on in Chechnya is really a war for independence. They don't want to be a part of the Russian Confederacy.

In Iraq, you have terrorists that don't want to see a democracy succeed in the Middle East because it'll erode their power.
Not really. Most of the 'terrorists' are indiginous militias belonging to the various religious parties which got elected. Two sides of the same coin. Sectarian politics in office, sectarian violence on the streets. Away from the major bases, most areas don't even see a daily patrol. They already have all the power they need. And the Americans...the only people who still want them around are the ones making money off their presence. You're just getting in the way of someone else's civil war now, and having your tax money embezzled by the billion, by corrupt officials.

You cannot compare the revolt in Chechnya to what is going on in Iraq. There is no comparison between the two. What is going on in Chechnya is really a war for independence. They don't want to be a part of the Russian Confederacy.

In Iraq, you have terrorists that don't want to see a democracy succeed in the Middle East because it'll erode their power.

Well, that's certainly the approved Bush version of the motives of the insurgency. Kind of along the lines of "terrorists attack us because they hate freedom"... I wouldn't be so quick to claim that I know what their motives are. Most likely the insurgency includes a number of different viewpoints from people who would just as happily be fighting each other.

I'd imagine that some of them are fighting to hold onto power, and some are fighting for similar reasons to Chechnya: they see the Iraqi government as a US puppet and are fighting for independence.

Breaking News: AL QAEDA'S NO. 2 TERROR MASTERMIND IN IRAQ KILLED IN BAGHDAD RAID BY U.S. SPECIAL FORCES SUNDAY, DEFENSE OFFICIALS SAY

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170467,00.html

More to come on this developing story.
How many times have we killed a #2 guy now? 3 or 4, right?

How many times have we killed a #2 guy now? 3 or 4, right?

Enough to know that it's not a "blow to the terrorists" but "an exciting career opportunity for the up and coming Islamic extremist."

Enough to know that it's not a "blow to the terrorists" but "an exciting career opportunity for the up and coming Islamic extremist."
Yep. Of course, I probably should've put 'killed' in quotation marks, since at least one of them turned out to not be as dead as we thought.

Yep. Of course, I probably should've put 'killed' in quotation marks, since at least one of them turned out to not be as dead as we thought.

"I'm not dead yet!" :mp5:

"thanks - see you next tuesday?" ;)

How many times have we killed a #2 guy now? 3 or 4, right?

Depends in what area you are talking about. Its happened in Afghanistan. It happened in Saudi Arabia (done by the Saudis no less) and now in Iraq. Seems like we can get the number 2 man but never the number 1 man :(

Depends in what area you are talking about. Its happened in Afghanistan. It happened in Saudi Arabia (done by the Saudis no less) and now in Iraq. Seems like we can get the number 2 man but never the number 1 man :(

But there might not BE any no.1 man... it might just be a series of independent but similarily ideologically linked groups- with no head but the means to unify publicily in the name of AQ so they can get publicity!

No group- no physical 'base'- but a 'base' ideology!

But no, that would be too difficult to fight against... ;)

i know i might start repaeting myself..i promise i will stop after this one..but i find it highly suspicious that neither cnn nor reuters, which is maybe the world's largest news agency, runs any notice on this.
alright, as prmised
[/thread pestering]

But there might not BE any no.1 man... it might just be a series of independent but similarily ideologically linked groups- with no head but the means to unify publicily in the name of AQ so they can get publicity!

No group- no physical 'base'- but a 'base' ideology!

But no, that would be too difficult to fight against... ;)

There's always a number 1 even for groups that have a like mind.

It's funny, I had to see a corpse to get a confirmed kill, but for news agencies word of mouth is O-tay. :rolleyes:

Funny, the angle i would have thought was this:

Before Iraq- we ALL knew who BL was...
Zarqawi? Who the hell is that?! :confused:

Iraq is Z stomping ground- he's making a success of it (from their perspective obviously). BL has little to do with organising it (as far as the intel goes) and releasing a video every time something happens 'claiming' they did it- doesn't mean they actually did. They'd probably try to claim Katrina for all we know! :p

Z was showing up BL- embarrassing him by showing that there is another top dog in town. A rival for influence and followers. BL- not like. 'Orders' Z to leave- since Z and BL never were with each other in the first place- Z says :foff:

Its a rivalry between their two leaders and their 2 groups.

Or maybe i'm reading too much into their personalities... :D

i would imagine the communication between al-Z and UBL goes something like this:

Al-Z: Hey, man, I'm having trouble finding protein in the caves... got any suggestions?

UBL: I've found, since I've been hiding out in caves for the past four years, that ants, roaches, and grasshoppers all serve as good sources of protein.

Al-Z: Bugs? Yuck. I will not get my 20,000 virgins in heaven if I eat insects.

UBL: You actually fell for that sales pitch? LOL. Dude, if you don't start eating bugs, you'll have no energy to even get up and take a piss.

Al-Z: Okay, I'll try it, but I wish I had some spices to mask the taste... or a microwave. I like cooking my meat.

UBL: Just pick them up and pop them. After a while they begin to taste like chicken, though those around you might complain about your black-stained tongue and the bits that get stuck in your teeth. You might want to think about sending your 20th lieutenant's 33rd private to grab you a toothbrush and some Crest on the next Al-Walgreen's scouting mission.

Al-Z: And what about sleeping on the ground? It really is uncomfortable.

UBL: Get used to it... or try to get one of your peops to grab you an inflatable mattress. Someone in the States could pick one up at Wal-Mart and send it over here.

Al-Z: Well, thanks a bunch, Usama. You da man.

UBL: Salaam.

NBC-Katrina
CBS-Katrina
ABC-Katrina

Odd. I guess the big 3 are more interested in entertaining America than reporting the news.

i would imagine the communication between al-Z and UBL goes something like this:

Al-Z: Hey, man, I'm having trouble finding protein in the caves... got any suggestions?

UBL: I've found, since I've been hiding out in caves for the past four years, that ants, roaches, and grasshoppers all serve as good sources of protein.

Al-Z: Bugs? Yuck. I will not get my 20,000 virgins in heaven if I eat insects.

UBL: You actually fell for that sales pitch? LOL. Dude, if you don't start eating bugs, you'll have no energy to even get up and take a piss.

Al-Z: Okay, I'll try it, but I wish I had some spices to mask the taste... or a microwave. I like cooking my meat.

UBL: Just pick them up and pop them. After a while they begin to taste like chicken, though those around you might complain about your black-stained tongue and the bits that get stuck in your teeth. You might want to think about sending your 20th lieutenant's 33rd private to grab you a toothbrush and some Crest on the next Al-Walgreen's scouting mission.

Al-Z: And what about sleeping on the ground? It really is uncomfortable.

UBL: Get used to it... or try to get one of your peops to grab you an inflatable mattress. Someone in the States could pick one up at Wal-Mart and send it over here.

Al-Z: Well, thanks a bunch, Usama. You da man.

UBL: Salaam.
Kinda odd... :confused:

They never 'allied' or fought with each other- only met a handful of times in Afghanistan (in which Z refused to bow to the suzreignty (sp?) of Bin Laden)- don't agree with each other in Iraq and, frankly, detest each other.

But then again- maybe you have a secret source ;)

too bad killing a leader doesn't stop an angry mob. it only makes them angrier.
it doesn't take a genius leader to get you to strap a bomb to yourself and kill people.

i think iraq is pretty much a lost cause. we're not going to be able to stop all the bloodshed there. we went there with a good enough cause. but it exploded in our face... but then, if terorists who were supplied WMD's by Iraq attacked us everyone would be screaming bush didn't do enough.

the situation if pretty much screwed. maybe if we find something better instead of oil we can pull out of everywhere. autonomy=peace.

WOOOHOOOOO!

Zarqawi, you're next, you bastard.

i think iraq is pretty much a lost cause. we're not going to be able to stop all the bloodshed there. we went there with a good enough cause. but it exploded in our face...

Eh I don't agree. I think it is pretty much on the right track. remember it took blood to make this nation (USA) go on the right path. It took sacrifice and a civil war. The situation does not become good over night.

LOL

I am somehow sceptical of the "#2 in Iraq" claims.

Even if he is, I am not sure if it will make any dent. Even Zarqawi's elimination won't make much of a dent. It will make a dent in Bush's approval ratings maybe, but not in Iraq. :)

Remember the "Ba'athists are doing this, once we capture Saddam it will reduce" line of argument bandied about before Saddam's capture.

Anywayz..It is being thought now that there is a rift between Zarqawi and OBL because of Zarqawi's repeated targetting of shia civilians (which was not part of the AQ franchise contract that he signed with OBL)
true

WOOOHOOOOO!

Zarqawi, you're next, you bastard.


I am looking foward to them grabbing him. It'd be great if they caught him alive and intact.

I'll settle for dead on a meat hook, with a pound of raw pork in him,though.

Good News??????!!!!!!

FOX News has confirmed that Abu Azzam (search), who was believed to have been in charge of the financing of terrorist cells in the war-torn country, was killed during a raid in Baghdad early Monday morning Iraq time. Azzam is thought to be the top deputy to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), Iraq's most wanted terrorist.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A man believed to be al Qaeda's No. 2 operative in Iraq has been killed, a U.S. Defense Department official confirmed to CNN.

They shot someone who hasn't been tried, hasn't been charged with anything, nor has been shown to be linked with anything. Great.

This is the same bullshit they did with Saddam's sons (who were disgusting arseholes) - shoot instead of letting them be heard.

Remember: Hating someone is not enough reason to kill them without trial.

They shot someone who hasn't been tried, hasn't been charged with anything, nor has been shown to be linked with anything. Great.

You resist, you get shot.

This is the same bullshit they did with Saddam's sons (who were disgusting arseholes) - shoot instead of letting them be heard.

They resisted and refused to surrendered so they got themselves killed.

You resist, you get shot...They resisted and refused to surrendered so they got themselves killed.
If that is the case, then (apart from still asking why they can't use flashbangs etc) I'll accept it.
But I haven't seen details of the incident, they could've put him against a wall and shot him in the back of the neck for all I know.
Then there still is the issue with presenting bullet-ridden bodies to the whole world, which is decidedly undignified for both sides.

And BTW, don't you think one 2nd man in Iraq is worth as much info as about 200 poor grunts locked away in a concentration camp (sorry, I meant "detention") for four years?

They shot someone who hasn't been tried, hasn't been charged with anything, nor has been shown to be linked with anything. Great.

This is the same bullshit they did with Saddam's sons (who were disgusting arseholes) - shoot instead of letting them be heard.

Remember: Hating someone is not enough reason to kill them without trial.

:rolleyes: People love not recognizing the good in Iraq.


Soldier I: Dude, we're going to smoke you and take you in, stay -

Uday: *rata tat tat tat tat tat...*

Soldier I: Holy fuck! Quit you're shooting and surrender.

Uday: *tat tat tat tat tat tat...*

Soldier I: Fuck you! Fine, I'm shooting you in the fucking leg!

Soldier II: Shit, he's goin' prone!

Soldier I: *bang* Oops.


Just pretend it went that way, Leo. It might make you feel better. I mean, seriously, do you think it would have gone like this?


Soldier I: Throw down your weapons and come out calmly!

Uday: Okay! *complies*


Personally, I'm fine with killing known child rapists and ruthless murderers. But that's just me. Go hug a tree.

If that is the case, then (apart from still asking why they can't use flashbangs etc) I'll accept it.

Here you go (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/22/sprj.irq.sons/), Mr. Fuck-Iraq-No-Matter-How-Much-Good-Comes-of-It:

The bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein were identified from "multiple sources," Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad. "The bodies are in a condition where you could identify them.

"They resisted the detention and the efforts of the coalition forces to go in there and apprehend them, and they were killed in the ensuing gunfight and the attacks that we conducted on the residence."

Perspective, perhaps?



Haven't even determined exactly what sort of leadership figure this represented yet.



Again, perspective. We are there, we have to stay there until the job is finished, but we can never forget we are there because we were lied to and what we did was illegal.

I love how people state that as a fact.

We don't have to stay there. Its a conscious choice, and a bad one at that, as far as I can see.

:rolleyes: People love not recognizing the good in Iraq.
You're really out for a fight, aren't you. Well, guess what, you'll have to find someone else...
Besides, that's not what it is about. I don't think killing people for being suspected of doing something is not something to be proud of.

I was kinda happy when they did the election, I was happy when they managed to sort out Al-Sadr. But to be honest, if you don't share your view of the insurgency, then many of the "good news" sound different.

That being said, I think that Al-Zarqawi isn't helping the Iraqis in the slightest (even less than the occupation) - attacking Iraqis just to create unrest is a cynical move that clearly gets the thumbs down from me.
Still not enough of a reason to bypass the principles of justice.

Personally, I'm fine with killing known child rapists and ruthless murderers. But that's just me. Go hug a tree.
:rolleyes:
You know my view fo playing by the rules, even if you don't like the other side.
The Hussein Brothers were resisting, and I already said that I'm not a fan of theirs. I'm still wondering why they couldn't have used some non-lethal weaponry to capture them and put them on trial - they've done it with Saddam.

Maybe they should think about rubber bullets, stun guns, flashbangs etc when they do these raids - that guy could have given as much information as the entire Camp X-Ray did in 4 years.

I love how people state that as a fact.

We don't have to stay there. Its a conscious choice, and a bad one at that, as far as I can see.

Okay, prove to me that an immediate pull out of US forces will improve the situation. Facts, figures, logic and statement from qualified experts will all be required.

Please, please, PLEASE prove this to me as I would so dearly love to be wrong but haven't seen a single credible piece of evidence yet to indicate that pulling out now wouldn't be as huge a mistake as going in there in the first place.

The Hussein Brothers were resisting, and I already said that I'm not a fan of theirs. I'm still wondering why they couldn't have used some non-lethal weaponry to capture them and put them on trial - they've done it with Saddam.

Because Saddam cried like a little bitch and said, "Don't shoot, I'm Saddam, don't shoot," when we found him.

Maybe they should think about rubber bullets, stun guns, flashbangs etc when they do these raids - that guy could have given as much information as the entire Camp X-Ray did in 4 years.

Why risk our men getting hit by a blind shot and dying for the sake of men that would be killed later, anyway? They resisted... why treat them differently than any other insurgents? Or would you have us arrest all of our enemies instead of killing them, so that we can try them fairly and see if they deserve to die for shooting at us?

Because Saddam cried like a little bitch and said, "Don't shoot, I'm Saddam, don't shoot," when we found him.
:rolleyes:

Or would you have us arrest all of our enemies instead of killing them, so that we can try them fairly and see if they deserve to die for shooting at us?
Short Answer: Yes.

Good? Well... we'll see.

As it has been said, we've heard this line before and the attacks haven't stopped. We're fighting a hydra, cut off one head and another just shows up.

Besides, no matter how much Rumsfield keeps claiming, I do not see much of the insurgency being non-Iraqis. Funding, training, and perhaps leadership is coming from outside, but the men actually fighting seem home grown, which makes sense.

Israel could tell you how being in a land other people think is theirs makes them able to blow themselves up. Looking at it that way, the attacks will not even slow down, any more than Americans would stop fighting an invader even if Vice President Cheney were killed (Now THERE'S a weird mental image).

If that is the case, then (apart from still asking why they can't use flashbangs etc) I'll accept it.

Uhh! If they are shooting at you from a building, you destroy the building. Why get yourself killed by trying to get in close enough to use one?

But I haven't seen details of the incident, they could've put him against a wall and shot him in the back of the neck for all I know.
Then there still is the issue with presenting bullet-ridden bodies to the whole world, which is decidedly undignified for both sides.

Ok granted on the last one but we had to show the world that the Saddam boys were dead. Otherwise, the world wouldn't believe it.

I love how people state that as a fact.

We don't have to stay there. Its a conscious choice, and a bad one at that, as far as I can see.

You want Iraq to fall to civil war? Sorry but we really do have no choice but to stay till they are able to defend themselves.

Short Answer: Yes.

Then you really are a fool. If someone shoots at you, are you going to tell him to surrender and lay down your arms or shoot back?

Me personally? I'd shoot back and aim for the guy's heart or head.

You want Iraq to fall to civil war? Sorry but we really do have no choice but to stay till they are able to defend themselves.That's the saddest part ever. Stay in Iraq... the world hates you, leave Iraq... the world still hates you, and there's no way the US can get out of this situation. The US should think twice before puttin' a show like this.

That's the saddest part ever. Stay in Iraq... the world hates you, leave Iraq... the world still hates you, and there's no way the US can get out of this situation. The US should think twice before puttin' a show like this.

When someone is determined to hate you they will hate you no matter what. For that reason the only thing to do is to just spit on them and keep on going.

As one of my favorite sages Rick Nelson put it,

"But it's all right now!
I learned my lesson well.
See, ya can't please everybody
so ya got to please yourself!" ;)

Then you really are a fool..
It was the short answer...

:rolleyes:


Short Answer: Yes.

That approach doesn't seem to be working well for France. :(

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2005/09/one_out_of_thre_1.html

I don't think the purely judicial approach did much good for Theo Van Gough either. Catch and release programs are seldom useful in getting rid of varmints. :rolleyes:

Catch and release programs are seldom useful in getting rid of varmints.
They're not perfect, it's pretty impossible to judge whether one may resort to violence again.
But they're the best we have, because quite frankly, I exclude the death penalty in all cases - and without a trial you can times that by a hundred.

[Quoting=Poster]Blah blah blah Bush r0x blah blah r0x0rs my s0x0rs blah...[/quote]
You're like some kind of fucking puppet parroting everything your Ministry of Truth tells you. So who's this Zarqawi person? I have never heard of him till a few months ago. Your government is just a bunch of pathological liars and evangelical and ignorant-to-high-hell-Christians.

To hell with you, and your country. The world hates you. Hillbilly hicks.

You can kill as many 'Terrorist' leaders as you want in Iraq and the Middle east in general. It won't fix a thing. You can't quash hatred with violence.
The Muslims in the Middle East hate the US for many reasons. Their continued support of Israel in f#cking the Palestinians, the Iran Iraq war, their position on Saudi Arabia, the War on Terror, etc.

This is exactly the problem that America had with Vietnam. Throw enough guns and bombs and troops and money at the problem and eventually it will go away. Rather than admitting that a change of tactics is needed.

America had better make sure Iraq is looked after; the world is already pissed at them for invading. If they go and pull out now leaving the country in anarchy no one will be happy with them.
The UN didn't want anything to do with the war because they had no reason to believe that Saddam had WMDs. And they didn't want the US to get involved because they knew that the US weren't prepared to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq.
So far the US has only proved them right by not finding any WMDs and fucking up the rebuilding of Iraq about as well as they possibly could.

If the US really wanted to reduce the number of terrorists coming out of the Middle East a good start would be to swallow their pride, admit to the UN that they were wrong and beg for them to take over in Iraq.
Give an ultimatum to Israel, work out a proper peace plan by yay date or we'll pull support.
And while you're at it stop taking everyones oil.

That's the saddest part ever. Stay in Iraq... the world hates you, leave Iraq... the world still hates you, and there's no way the US can get out of this situation. The US should think twice before puttin' a show like this.

And the UN should've done its job of actually ENFORCING Iraq to comply with the resolutions that they passed. They didn't do that so the United States and others stepped in and did it for them.

[Quote=Poster]Blah blah blah Bush r0x blah blah r0x0rs my s0x0rs blah...

You're like some kind of fucking puppet parroting everything your Ministry of Truth tells you. So who's this Zarqawi person? I have never heard of him till a few months ago. Your government is just a bunch of pathological liars and evangelical and ignorant-to-high-hell-Christians.

Nice ad homen attack! Zarqawi is the leader of the resistance movement in the nation of Iraq who is trying to destabilize the nation into civil war. The same resistance that is blowing up Iraqi Civilians and assassinating Iraqi Political Leaders.

To hell with you, and your country. The world hates you. Hillbilly hicks.

You're being childish. Grow up.

When someone is determined to hate you they will hate you no matter what. For that reason the only thing to do is to just spit on them and keep on going.

As one of my favorite sages Rick Nelson put it,

"But it's all right now!
I learned my lesson well.
See, ya can't please everybody
so ya got to please yourself!" ;)

That's a nice way of overlooking the way US foreign policy perpetually creates its own future problems. "Sure, they may hate the way we prop up dictatorships and occupy their countries, but they would've hated us ayway, so we might as well keep it up"...

[Quoting=Poster]Blah blah blah Bush r0x blah blah r0x0rs my s0x0rs blah...In case you missed it in your infantile rant, most of us do not have a particular affinity for Bush as a person or as a President and would love to figure a way out of this stupid Catch 22 we find ourselves in. Going was a bad idea, but we are there. Staying is a bad idea, but pulling out before stability/stasis has been reached is bad too. But it certainly sounds like you would love to bash the US no matter what happens, so what we do really shouldn't matter to you.
You're like some kind of fucking puppet parroting everything your Ministry of Truth tells you. So who's this Zarqawi person? I have never heard of him till a few months ago.Then you are pathetically uninformed and your opinions are therefore meaningless. Even the French know who Zarqawi is. Your government is just a bunch of pathological liars and evangelical and ignorant-to-high-hell-Christians. To hell with you, and your country. The world hates you. Hillbilly hicks.Infantile Flaming is unproductive to debate and will get you nowhere - except possibly forumbanned. :rolleyes:

Even the French know who Zarqawi is.

And what is THAT supposed to mean exactly...?

And what is THAT supposed to mean exactly...?
It means that the French, who are fairly passionately against everything that has happened in Iraq, know who Zarqawi is... not in the least because they have had to bust up some AlQeada recruiting operations there.

B) the bad still coming out of Iraq far outweighs the good. Someday, this may change. Not at the moment, however.


What bad? And if you say the deaths then put things into perspective. We have only had a few dozen thousand casualties total, killed wounded or missing. Look at the Civil War, for example, just off the top of my head. 620,000 dead, over a million wounded. Look around at casualties of previous wars or military operations. Vietnam too has been blown out of proportion. The problem in America is the liberals all are way too skeptical and refuse to accept anything but outrageous changes in society. Impatience too damns us. The Vietnam conflict was just about won when Nixon came in. The insurgency was just about defeated. But due to the American people's skepticism and impatience Nixon was forced to pull out of something when if we'd stayed just a short time longer we could have bagged the whole crowd. Skepticism and impatience, it really sucks.

Liberals :sniper:

While killing a key figure is nice, the al-Q organization (and most insurgent organizations, for that matter) is diffuse and decentralized. They rely more on a committment to a common goal than a central authority figure.

That's why it would be fairly useless to do as John Kerry had said, and "capture Bin Laden".

What is necessary is to capture individual al-Q members, solely for the purpose of obtaining the names of other al-Q members, and killing them.

Same for any insurgency we face. Find their members, and kill them.

Interestingly, most al-Q members around the world that were found by US forces (official and clandestine) were not taken into custody. Most of them were killed on the spot.

Yes, they can be replaced. So you have to kill at a rather elevated rate. But you have to do it. Failing to do it means that they will win, given time.

Unless you like your women in blue beekeeper outfits, and you like growing a beard, dumping everything Western about you, and bowing down to Allah, then you had better wake up.

What bad? And if you say the deaths then put things into perspective. We have only had a few dozen thousand casualties total, killed wounded or missing. Look at the Civil War, for example, just off the top of my head. 620,000 dead, over a million wounded. Look around at casualties of previous wars or military operations. Vietnam too has been blown out of proportion.

Wow, nice to know that so long as human suffering doesn't reach a certain numerical threshold we can simply ignore it.

And it is far beyond just the deaths, although those numbers are quite high enough to cause concern. There is the increase in Islamic fundamentalism our actions have prospered. One of the given causes for the war was to increase the safety and stability of the region and, by proxy, the rest of the world. However, the region, both Iraq specifically and the neighboring countries, grows more unstable everyday. Terrorist attacks continue, with their leadership looking more and more like a hydra, ready to sprout another head the second we cut one off. The country drifts slowly towards a full-fledged civil war between Sunni insurgents and Shia militias and it's debateable that even our continued presence there can stop it. This instability spreads like a cancer to surrounding countries, galvanizing their resistance to any initiative that smacks of Western imperialism and making diplomatic relations in the region a nightmare if not completely impossible. This doesn't take into account the damage to world policy our actions have caused. Further weakening an already questionable UN and demonstrating that we only follow our promises when it suits is are just two of the results of this ill advised fiasco.

With all this said, I still can't imagine it being any better with an immediate US withdrawl of troops. However, it is the HEIGHT of jingoistic denial to honestly look at that situation over there and say, "on the whole, the good outweighs the bad."


The problem in America is the liberals all are way too skeptical and refuse to accept anything but outrageous changes in society.

Yes, yes, blame the liberals. It's fashionable and requires very little actual reasoning or attention to be paid to facts. :rolleyes:


Impatience too damns us. The Vietnam conflict was just about won when Nixon came in. The insurgency was just about defeated. But due to the American people's skepticism and impatience Nixon was forced to pull out of something when if we'd stayed just a short time longer we could have bagged the whole crowd. Skepticism and impatience, it really sucks.

The differences between Iraq and Vietnam are far and wide, too far and too wide to ever allow one to be used in any meaningful way as a criteria for the other. I refuse to discuss Vietnam in the context of Iraq. Iraq is it's own action and any false comparison drawn between Vietnam and Iraq is just that, false.


Liberals :sniper:

Yep, and even though I'm not a liberal, this last little bit allows me to ignore you and your posts in the future. It is amazing how quickly people claiming to stand up for the ideals of the United States are willing to sacrifice the rights of other citizens of the United States when they disagree with them. :rolleyes:

While killing a key figure is nice, the al-Q organization (and most insurgent organizations, for that matter) is diffuse and decentralized. They rely more on a committment to a common goal than a central authority figure.

That's why it would be fairly useless to do as John Kerry had said, and "capture Bin Laden".

What is necessary is to capture individual al-Q members, solely for the purpose of obtaining the names of other al-Q members, and killing them.

Same for any insurgency we face. Find their members, and kill them.

Interestingly, most al-Q members around the world that were found by US forces (official and clandestine) were not taken into custody. Most of them were killed on the spot.

Yes, they can be replaced. So you have to kill at a rather elevated rate. But you have to do it. Failing to do it means that they will win, given time.

They win given time anyway because you can't kill them fast enough. Unless you're advocating for wholesale slaughter in that region of the world and any region where sympathy may lie, then you do the terrorist's recruitment work for them each time you kill someone. Killing faster simply means faster recruitment for the terrorists. This very idea, the idea of "you disagree with us and since we are far stronger than you conventionally, that gives us the right to kill you" is the exact reason people join terrorist organizations. They feel hopeless and brutalized and without any way to address their concerns so they strike back the only way they know how, through terror. It's simply supply and demand on a sociological level.


When has a "Killem faster" strategy ever worked for this type of battle?

To stop the terrorists, you have to convince both people at large and even the terrorists themselves that their aims are pointless. You have to make people not want to be terrorists in the first place. That is the only long term solution to the problem.

<snip> To stop the terrorists, you have to convince both people at large and even the terrorists themselves that their aims are pointless. You have to make people not want to be terrorists in the first place. That is the only long term solution to the problem.
As a followup to that theme:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007326

Heart of Darkness
From Zarqawi to the man on the street, Sunni Arabs fear Shiite emancipation.

BY FOUAD AJAMI
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

The remarkable thing about the terror in Iraq is the silence with which it is greeted in other Arab lands. Grant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi his due: He has been skilled at exposing the pitilessness on the loose in that fabled Arab street and the moral emptiness of so much of official Arab life. The extremist is never just a man of the fringe: He always works at the outer edges of mainstream life, playing out the hidden yearnings and defects of the dominant culture. Zarqawi is a bigot and a killer, but he did not descend from the sky. He emerged out of the Arab world's sins of omission and commission; in the way he rails against the Shiites (and the Kurds) he expresses that fatal Arab inability to take in "the other." A terrible condition afflicts the Arabs, and Zarqawi puts it on lethal display: an addiction to failure, and a desire to see this American project in Iraq come to a bloody end.

Zarqawi's war, it has to be conceded, is not his alone; he kills and maims, he labels the Shiites rafida (rejecters of Islam), he charges them with treason as "collaborators of the occupiers and the crusaders," but he can be forgiven the sense that he is a holy warrior on behalf of a wider Arab world that has averted its gaze from his crimes, that has given him its silent approval. He and the band of killers arrayed around him must know the meaning of this great Arab silence. ... {snip very long very good article}

Mr. Ajami teaches International Relations at Johns Hopkins University.

They win given time anyway because you can't kill them fast enough. Unless you're advocating for wholesale slaughter in that region of the world and any region where sympathy may lie, then you do the terrorist's recruitment work for them each time you kill someone. Killing faster simply means faster recruitment for the terrorists. This very idea, the idea of "you disagree with us and since we are far stronger than you conventionally, that gives us the right to kill you" is the exact reason people join terrorist organizations. They feel hopeless and brutalized and without any way to address their concerns so they strike back the only way they know how, through terror. It's simply supply and demand on a sociological level.


When has a "Killem faster" strategy ever worked for this type of battle?

To stop the terrorists, you have to convince both people at large and even the terrorists themselves that their aims are pointless. You have to make people not want to be terrorists in the first place. That is the only long term solution to the problem.


I'm quite sure that nuclear weapons combined with salted weapons (enhanced fallout) would be extremely effective.

US studies done in the 1970s concluded that as few as two small salted devices detonated so high that the immediate effects would not be noticeable on the ground would completely depopulate an area the size of Iran in less than 20 days. With no ground damage, and no lasting radioactivity.

And you don't even have to invade, or occupy the country.

I'm quite sure that nuclear weapons combined with salted weapons (enhanced fallout) would be extremely effective.

US studies done in the 1970s concluded that as few as two small salted devices detonated so high that the immediate effects would not be noticeable on the ground would completely depopulate an area the size of Iran in less than 20 days. With no ground damage, and no lasting radioactivity.

And you don't even have to invade, or occupy the country.

*boggle*

Sometimes arguments spiral out of control. Much like this one clearly has.

I'm quite sure that nuclear weapons combined with salted weapons (enhanced fallout) would be extremely effective.

US studies done in the 1970s concluded that as few as two small salted devices detonated so high that the immediate effects would not be noticeable on the ground would completely depopulate an area the size of Iran in less than 20 days. With no ground damage, and no lasting radioactivity.

And you don't even have to invade, or occupy the country.

I think that would qualify as "advocating for wholesale slaughter in that region of the world and any region where sympathy may lie"...

I think that would qualify as "advocating for wholesale slaughter in that region of the world and any region where sympathy may lie"...

In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the US probably could have got away with this in Afghanistan.

I can imagine that after that, a lot of other nations would be a lot more cooperative with handing certain people over, without a lot of haranguing, and without a lot of fuss.

And the best part is that we would not be occupying anyone's country, or losing any of our soldiers abroad.

After depopulating Afghanistan (post 9-11), I would have then made a public statement that any further terrorist attacks on the United States will result in an unannounced attack on key terrorist recruitment populations, targeted assassinations of key terrorist spokemen, and utter destruction of key holy sites.

Hahahahaa, you Yanks and your Fox News,
Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Q

In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the US probably could have got away with this in Afghanistan.

I can imagine that after that, a lot of other nations would be a lot more cooperative with handing certain people over, without a lot of haranguing, and without a lot of fuss.

And the best part is that we would not be occupying anyone's country, or losing any of our soldiers abroad.

After depopulating Afghanistan (post 9-11), I would have then made a public statement that any further terrorist attacks on the United States will result in an unannounced attack on key terrorist recruitment populations, targeted assassinations of key terrorist spokemen, and utter destruction of key holy sites.

You know, if you hadn't come out of the closet as Whispering Legs, I might think you were pulling our legs.

See, the trouble is "might makes right" only works so long as you have the "might" and the fact is no one possesses the "might" eternally. Maybe through your lifetime, but at some point some one will have a bigger bomb than you and, because of your policies, absolutely no compunction about using it.

I probably shouldn't even ask, but have you even paused to think about the civilians you would kill with your "Apocalypse For Dummies" approach to policy?

Hahahahaa, you Yanks and your Fox News,
Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Q
Now it does. Hmm. Money from Saddam's family in Syria, funneled to Zarqawi (the al-Q man in Iraq). To pay for suicide bombers...

Now there is.

You know, if you hadn't come out of the closet as Whispering Legs, I might think you were pulling our legs.

See, the trouble is "might makes right" only works so long as you have the "might" and the fact is no one possesses the "might" eternally. Maybe through your lifetime, but at some point some one will have a bigger bomb than you and, because of your policies, absolutely no compunction about using it.

I probably shouldn't even ask, but have you even paused to think about the civilians you would kill with your "Apocalypse For Dummies" approach to policy?

It was highly effective at the end of World War II.

The reason that America's nuclear deterrent had any credibility was that people believed we would use it.

No trouble believing the Soviets - any country that would murder 20 million of its own people is credible. But the US, without using the Bomb, lacked credibility.

I think that, more than any other reason, is the reason it was used.

We're still here, after using it twice. But memories are short, and I think people need to be reminded.

Now it does. Hmm. Money from Saddam's family in Syria, funneled to Zarqawi (the al-Q man in Iraq). To pay for suicide bombers...

Now there is.

Gosh, amazing how that happened after we invaded...

It was highly effective at the end of World War II.

The reason that America's nuclear deterrent had any credibility was that people believed we would use it.

No trouble believing the Soviets - any country that would murder 20 million of its own people is credible. But the US, without using the Bomb, lacked credibility.

I think that, more than any other reason, is the reason it was used.

We're still here, after using it twice. But memories are short, and I think people need to be reminded.

Very pragmatic. Very ruthless.

However, why stop there? History tells us very effective campaigns can be fought with bioweapons, everything from blankets infected with smallpox to flinging the bodies of plauge-dead over barricade walls. I mean, atomic annhiliation is one thing, but if we REALLY want to send a message we have to make their own bodies turn against them. Besides, it won't pose a threat to those of us living in developed countries because we have medicines to treat the important members of our society and ensure they would live through any contagion that slipped out of the target area.

Gosh, amazing how that happened after we invaded...
Yes. Now you can see that my method would be much more effective, and much cleaner.

And, no nasty pictures of the dead posted on the Internet. No one would be able to take photos of anything except the bones (too radioactive for a couple of months to even stand there).

Yes. Now you can see that my method would be much more effective, and much cleaner.

If you really believe what you're saying here, please seek professional help.

Hahahahaa, you Yanks and your Fox News,
Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Q

Well aparently someone didn't notify Al Qaeda because it was also in my local paper this morning.

And the morning paper isn't conservative leaning either.

If you really believe what you're saying here, please seek professional help.

Obviously, someone in the US and the UK believed in the idea enough to design, develop, and deploy such a warhead.

It's the standard upgrade to the B-61 (which used to be Pershing warheads).

We won the Cold War with thinking like that. Perhaps you should read up on Kissinger's advice - and Harold Brown's similar advice - that resulted in Presidential Directive 59 under Jimmy Carter (surprising!).

A sea change in US nuclear thought. Not from Reagan, but from Carter and Brown, with some advice under the table from Kissinger.

Act crazier than your opponents. Make sure they know you will take ANY means necessary to kill them. Convince them. And they will back down.

Ever wonder why the cruise missile and Pershing II were deployed to Europe? Because of PD-59 and this philosophy.

If you really believe what you're saying here, please seek professional help.

I have to agree with Stephistan on that one.

I have to agree with Stephistan on that one.

I'm not any crazier than Harold Brown, or Jimmy Carter.

I'm not any crazier than Harold Brown, or Jimmy Carter.

Who said they weren't crazy? lol

Who said they weren't crazy? lol

Reagan didn't win the Cold War. Carter, Brown, and PD-59 won the Cold War.

Funny, isn't it?

And all those custom warheads are now our frontline air droppable nukes.

Yes. Now you can see that my method would be much more effective, and much cleaner.

And, no nasty pictures of the dead posted on the Internet. No one would be able to take photos of anything except the bones (too radioactive for a couple of months to even stand there).

I've frequently wondered what it might be like to live in a world free from the constraints of both common sense and morality. Now I have an answer.

Reagan didn't win the Cold War. Carter, Brown, and PD-59 won the Cold War.

Funny, isn't it?

And all those custom warheads are now our frontline air droppable nukes.

Actually, the Soviet Union cost themselves the Cold War. Didn't h elp matters much that Reagan beefed up Military Spending forcing the Commies to do the samething.

I've frequently wondered what it might be like to live in a world free from the constraints of both common sense and morality. Now I have an answer.

Are you saying that the US was using morality and common sense in bombing Japan?

Are you saying that Bomber Harris was using morality and common sense?

Are you saying that the customization of the B-61 was done for no reason at all ?

You already live in such a world. Had you a more personal contact with violent death on a daily basis for at least some part of your life, you would already know this.

Are you saying that the US was using morality and common sense in bombing Japan?

Are you saying that Bomber Harris was using morality and common sense?

Are you saying that the customization of the B-61 was done for no reason at all ?

You already live in such a world. Had you a more personal contact with violent death on a daily basis for at least some part of your life, you would already know this.

No, what I'm commenting on is your illustration of what it's like on a personal level. Should those things be truely lacking on a macroscale, then it becomes even more important on a microscale that we seek them in our own lives and in what we advocate for. To not do this is to surrender our own humanity.

Actually, Genocide would be a practical solution to end Islamic Terrorism. If we, has people, were willing to murder (yes, it would be cold murder) literally millions of Muslims, men, women and children alike, foreigners and our own countrymen, I guess there wouldn't be anyone to wage a jihad against the west.

Ofcourse, such course of action wouldnt stay well in the evening news. And in any moral scale, that would make those that would carry out such actions not only worse than Osama Bin Laden, but far worse than Hitler.

Well, i'm one of those lyric guys that thinks that there are better solutions than just killing everyone, like patience and diplomacy, but lets face it: No man, no problem (Stalin's words, worked swell for him).

Actually, Genocide would be a practical solution to end Islamic Terrorism. If we, has people, were willing to murder (yes, it would be cold murder) literally millions of Muslims, men, women and children alike, foreigners and our own countrymen, I guess there wouldn't be anyone to wage a jihad against the west.

Ofcourse, such course of action wouldnt stay well in the evening news. And in any moral scale, that would make those that would carry out such actions not only worse than Osama Bin Laden, but far worse than Hitler.

Well, i'm one of those lyric guys that thinks that there are better solutions than just killing everyone, like patience and diplomacy, but lets face it: No man, no problem (Stalin's words, worked swell for him).


The story would be largely forgotten in a few generations. Humans have a short memory.

The story would be largely forgotten in a few generations. Humans have a short memory.


Debateable. We still discuss with "great horror" (or should i call it something else?) the genocide of indians, african slavery, and stuff like that. Stuff that were perpetrated 500 years ago, with little more than the testimonials of some survivors to pass the word of such atrocities. In modern ages, there would be alot more recordings made, alot more, that would mark alot more, and extend our collective memory for more than a few generations.

I mean, it took 2000 years for the Roman's good'ol massacres to become footnotes of history. The entire genocide of the Muslim population of the world wouldnt be forgotten so quickly.

PS: I never understood the obsession with nukes. Those drop radiation, that persists for ages. Why not biological or chemical weapons?