Printable View
Announced by Iraq's Prime Minister today that a joint raid by Iraq and the US lead armed forces that they have terminated and positivetly identified Al Zarquawi.
They are cautioning that this is not the end of Al-Queda but hope its a reduction in the violence. What, are they dreaming? I bet its only going to increase the violence in efforts to lift Al-Zarquawi up as a marter of the invasion.
I wonder who gets the $25 million dollar reward?
They are saying that they were tipped off by Iraqi's or Al-Queda members.
Sounds like either way, he was sold out by some of his own.
Probably so, but maybe with the new order it won't be so bad. It's great they got him, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I remember watching a special on A&E about people who tipped off the FBI about a most wanted character. They were suppose to recieve $1 million, but never got it.Quote:
I wonder who gets the $25 million dollar reward?
Well what if some Al-Queda member(s) tipped them off? Will we give 25 Mil to the terrorists to buy more weapons to use against us?
I think the word you're looking for is martyr :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
:lol: So it is. :D
Oh, here comes Bush making his victory speech...
Bush is claiming victory and that now we can free up our resources that were looking for Al Zarquawi to now start looking for Bin Laden. :rolleyes: like they ever stopped. They just cant find him.
It's not like you can make a big stink about it either. The public also expects you to do the patriotic thing and either turn down the money or donate it to a charity. If you hoard it, you better be looking for a new home in Mexico.Quote:
I remember watching a special on A&E about people who tipped off the FBI about a most wanted character. They were suppose to recieve $1 million, but never got it.
Also, it's kind of a catch 22. Because, if you withold information; that's grounds for treason. And if you only shared the information because of the reward, they could potentially charge you... And give you a fine... In the amount of 1mil or so? ;)
The other fun thing is, you can't be promised and legally bid the government to a promise like this. Mainly, because you can't take the government to court. All you can do, really, is whine about ethics.
Liss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
It won't change a thing. Didn't USA learn anything from Mogadishu?
Umm, this is a multinational force which England is a part of. I know Switzerland is "neutral" but you are better then France. They just rollover. :D
They just stated that they took him out in a house where they were having a meeting at by hitting it with 2 - 500 pound bombs. :lol: Talk about overkill and making sure you dont miss.
The tips on his location was from the local iraqi residents. Finally some people over there are thinking rationally and not all "death to the world that doesnt believe in Muhammad".
Did they kill any local Iraqi residents with their two 500 pound bombs?
No, they said only 7 people in the house were killed and Al Zarquawi didnt die immediatly. They handed him over to the Iraqi security and then he "died of his incurred injuries". Ya, right. ;) I bet when they got hold of him the Iraqi's helped his injuries along. ;)
Like Judas, right? ;)Quote:
Finally some people over there are thinking rationally
? but I just mean that at least they are starting to see the light that hes bringing death and destruction to their country and increasing the stero types.
I'm fairly sure that light was already well and truly on. Maybe its more there are a few more people speaking out.
I am all against terrorism, but I don't think that the US has the right to police the world like that. It IS a multinational force, but still it is mainly US force, UK is there but mostly because Tony Blair cant get his head out of Americas ass.
Regarding France and their refusal to support the invasion, that was tragicomic. I mean all that wine spilling and renaming the French fries to Freedom fries and hating the French because they did not want to invade a country?!? Sometime I really can't understand American people.
There's nothing to understand. Some people don't have anything better to do with their lives. We've made everything a convenience and literally live the drone life... Now all of these people have energy that they need to focus and garbage protests in the name of patriotism seem like the best outlet right now.Quote:
Sometime I really can't understand American people.
Honestly, well over half of the people here lack purpose or direction. They're given the freedom to do whatever they want, but choose to do nothing. They get in their 8-5 at a seat-filler job (that could easily be made redundant, but keeping people paid so they can consume is the basis of our economics), get home just in time for the evening sitcoms, have dinner and then watch the 10 o'clock news before going to bed. Eventually, they'll have a kid or two and let that completely consume every aspect of their lives.
Can you really blame them for trying to feel important?
I don't think this is new, or an american only thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
I don't get it. They said they killed him by dropping 500 pound bombs on his house. But they were able to find his body intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
In terms of collateral damage, they also killed a kid and some woman.
I know its war, whatever, if I was the general I would try to get Zarquawi no matter what too. But they could have tried something else besides a carpet bomb, like maybe a swat team or a sniper shot.
I think they were afraid to fail. I'm surprised that they didn't nuke him.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
They were probably afraid of retaliation in case they failed.
Or they had alot of tips from alot of people. And due to a lack of time to manually search each place, they just bombed them all?
From what I hear they did have Special Forces on the ground but didn’t want to take the chance of him slipping away again. And its hardly carpet bombing when you can send a satellite guided bomb right through a 4’ x 6’ window.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
X
They only leveled one house and they showed a picture of it. It was a cinderblock dwelling that is now only a 3' pile of rubble. I'm sure the "house" was fortified like the usual stronghold that they hide in.
Should the USA stand idley by and do nothing until other countries start crying about how they have been invaded and bombed or nuked by them. By that time its just too late.
Yea, it'd be a great idea to send guys in to get the guy that sleeps with a suicide belt on and vowed not to be taken alive. F that. JDAM all the way.
I think you mean stereo types here. What's wrong with free trade? They should be able to get Japanese electronics just like we are. The more stereos you can choose from, the better sound you'll get. Just imagine how much better Osama's videos would be if he had something like The Beastie Boys playing in the background.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Hard to identify the body after you nuke someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
Hmm, I read the new developments, apparently the guy was killed in part by the rubble. Well thats good. I'm glad his body wasn't incenarted so we have proof he's gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I wonder if he's got his 72 virgins yet :lol: :lol:
Quote:
Didn't USA learn anything from Mogadishu?
I think we can conclude the lessons learned from Mogadishu were fully applied in this case.Quote:
I know its war, whatever, if I was the general I would try to get Zarquawi no matter what too. But they could have tried something else besides a carpet bomb, like maybe a swat team or a sniper shot
I find the whole 'You complain if we act, complain if we don't' argument disingenuous. The truth is we complain when you act without gaining a borad consensus of international support first - that's why we complained about Iraq (even though us Brits happily went along for the ride :mad: ) but were perfectly happy about Afghanistan. We'll probably be perfectly happy with an invasion of Iran IF it turns out they are developing nuclear for weapons rather than domestic purposes and IF they refuse to stop and IF they continue to proclaim a policy of annihalition towards Israel (or anyone else for that matter).
This appeats to me to be a win,win,win,win,win situation.
1. It would appear it was other insurgents who grassed him up. So they got rid of someone whose main objective in Iraq was to wipe out Sunnis.
2. The U.S. Military got a minor victory in their "war on terror".
3. Al Zarqawi got his martyrdom.
4. His group now have a new role model.
5. And The Sunnis might feel a little bit safer.
I'd say it was a bit more than a minor victory. They also raided 19 other insurgent safehouses simultaneously based on intel from the same guy that gave they Al Zarqwari. That's freaking huge. Consider all of the intel and other info they can squeeze out of the guys they captured, plus whatever info was laying around the houses. JDAMing Al Zarqawi was just a pretty bow for the press. The real present was nabbing all of those other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadEyes
Think of it this way. If someone wanted to know how to destroy your computer network. Should they kidnap you, or kidnap your companies president?
And 39 more raids today.
Nobodies claiming this will end the insurgency and its all roses from here on out, but it's definitely a HUGE victory for the MNF.
He died soon after U.S. troops reached him. It's especially gratifying to think that Zarqawi spent his final minutes fully aware of who got him.
Well, I am all against using nuclear power in any way (with current technology anyway). But, what give the US or France the right to have nuclear weapons and some other country not?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Because the USA is responsible and we invented nuclear weapons. :D
You dont see the USA threatening other countries with nukes and threatening to stop importing oil if we dont get our way. :lol:
Well, all the scientists that invented it were foreigners. And, as I know, the US is the only country that actaully used them. And I dont remember that anyone (Iran included) threatned other countries with nuclear weapons, and thay are only threatning to stop exporting oil because the US is interfeering with their internal affairs. And US imposed embargos on numerous countries that did not make any threats to the US.
Well Iran is saying that they are needing/wanting nukes and if nato doesnt get off their backs then they will mess with oil production to hurt the us. They have also stated that they want them and their nuclear program is not just for energy issues.
Sounds quite clear that they want nukes and wil stop at nothing in order to get them. Why do they want them so badly? To fire against who eveer they want. If they had nukes and the majority of the worlds oil wouldnt that make them in control of the world? Seems like it to me.
So would you say having one country in control of the world would be bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Actually, the only really sovereign countries today are the countries that posses nuclear weapons. Aside from that, the probably see nuclear weapons as the only means of protecting themselves from outside intrusions, influences and control from the US and NATO. They do not have the military power that can match that of the US. So the only way to insure that they can govern themselves is to have the weapons, and maybe than others (US and NATO) will be affraid to try and pull something like in Iraq, Afganistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc. etc.
And, thay want to stop oil export in order to hurt the US, opposed to all other embargos the US has imposed on other countries in order to help them.
But wouldnt you say that Iran is not a sovereign nation?
So instead of a typical Cold War we have countries that just want some kind of nuclear capabilities as their way of saying "I am a powerful country and you need to give me what I want?"
Well yes, for now. But if the US continues its pattern, Iran and Korea are likely to go through the same thing as Iraq and Afganistan. Military action, and after that they install a US friendly government. A lot of countries were allready subject to that pattern, and you have to options, either sell out, or face a military invasion and forcefull change of government.
And they dont want nukes so thay can say "I am a powerful country and you need to give me what I want", they're saying "I am a powerful country and I dont want what you want".
And whats wrong with that? :lol: jk. ;)Quote:
have to options, either sell out, or face a military invasion and forcefull change of government.
I think Iran and Iraq are a bit different since they control the worlds oil. Any countries that have control over the world like that have to be dealt with in a particular way as to be fair for the rest of the world. No one country should control the world like that. Democratic countries are not controlled by a dictator but controlled by its people. This makes for a mature responsible country that can interact with the rest of the world in a professional mannor and not all "death and nukes to all that dont let us do whatever the hell we want to who ever the hell we want".
I agree that Iraq and Iran are a special case, because of their strict religion and because of the oil, but if you set that asside, there are other numerous cases where the US (or NATO influenced by th US) interviened for it's own personal reasons.
Our own personal reasons = spread freedom and I supose that is a bad thing?
Spread freedom? You are kidding, right?
Was thinking the same thing lmao!Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Whos getting virgins?
[ignorance]somthing they belive i'm no expert but they get 13 virgins if they kill somone.[/ignorance]
Then they cant add as it should be 78 virgins.
Who gets 13 virgins for killing who? In any case, how come they didnt run out of virgins 30 years ago? :)
It took over 100,000 people to develop the first atomic weapon and most of those were natural born U.S, citizens. The bomb developers came from all walks of life, different cultures, countries of origin and religion. They had one thing in common: they believed in the righteousness of the U.S. and it’s task to defeat the enemy.Quote:
Well, all the scientists that invented it were foreigners
Today Iran wants to develop those same weapons, but you will not find many outside of Iran and the radical Islamo-Fascist world who believe in the righteousness of its nuclear weapons program.
One major difference between Iran and the U.S. is that Iran openly supports terrorism (the purposeful targeting of unarmed civilians to achieve your goal) and the U.S. is fighting terrorism.
Even for power generation? why would that be? It's the cleanest most abundant form of energy there is.Quote:
Well, I am all against using nuclear power in any way
Plenty of countries are able to peacefully govern themselves without nuclear weapons. Irans goal is not simply to govern themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
Correct, as is why the countries of NATO must do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from attaining nukes, PERIOD!Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Have you ever seen Iraqi women? It is understandable that there are a never ending supply of virgins. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
:lol:
So is that why the have to wear vails too?
The veils are to protect them from the smell of a freshly exploded martyr. This brings up another question that has been laying heavy on my mind. If a suicide bomber blows himself up with a pair of c4 packed underpants, what good will 70 something virgins do him if hid bits and pieces are blown off. :confused: