Lone_Gunman
Member
Remember when Bush said...
Looks like he must have changed his mind.
Looks like he must have changed his mind.
Major U.S. attack may have killed Zawahri
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
Lone_Gunman
Member
I am sure killing their children will make them want to be our friends.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Lone_Gunman said:
The "US" didn't announce any of this, the media and their damned "sources".
Read the quote at the end, this is the official position of the US:
Notice they never use names, it's the typical media thing.
What exactly is a "US official" and a "senior US official"?
They quote the official as saying he's dead and the SENIOR official as saying don't believe it.
So tell me who started this story, the US government? Of course not, it's the fun media ratings game.
Manedwolf
member
Lone_Gunman said:
It's that "hearts and minds" thing, yes.
If you have kids...suppose a bunch of French or Russian or whatever agents raided your block because a criminal they wanted might be in one of the houses. They bomb it...your home is destroyed, and your children are killed. They don't even apologize...if you try to say anything, they point guns at you and yell at you threateningly.
What would you do, then? What would you feel? You didn't have anything to do with any causes or the criminals involved, but you've lost your family. These people who killed them don't even seem to care. You really don't have anything left to live for.
See why we're making more insurgents every day?
Lone_Gunman
Member
I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Do you believe the attack didn't happen?
Do you believe no innocent people were killed?
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
We are at war Collateral damage happens, that's the nature of the beast. BTW I'd take what the liberal media says with a grain of salt, we might not have gotten the exact one we wanted but we did get several. They did invite Zawahiri to their house which makes them accessories so they got what was coming.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Lone_Gunman said:
No, I said that you can't blame the government for the bragging that this or that guy was killed. It's a real shame what happened, but to bang on everyone for the repeated claims that whoever is dead is not the fault of anyone but the media.
And do you know for a fact the exact body count?
How many times did we hear of the "baby formula" factories being bombed during Gulf War I.
All I am saying is that in the fog of war, don't take what either side says as gospel, there is plenty of BS on both sides of the story.
That particular region of Pakistan isn't exactly the most friendly towards the US and is known for harboring terrorists and fugitives.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Blaming the media has always been one of Rove's favorite tactics. If bad things happen as a result of Neocon policies and the media reports these bad things, then the media is bad for reporting bad news.
Not that the media is innocent--catering to the lowest common denominator is inevetible when you combine a free press with a free market economy--but if the media is guilty of anything, it is under-reporting what is going on in the ME. The McLaughlin Group just did a segment on this today. Reports on the Iraqui war are less than 25 percent as common today as they were three years ago, even though January promises to be the bloodiest month in Iraq yet as far as U.S. casualties are concerned.
Manedwolf
member
longhorngunman said:
1. We still have not had a declaration of war, and we are not at war. The administration has declared war on an idea, terrorism, which is an impossible goal and has no possible resolution, ever. You can wipe out the leaders, like bin Laden, (which we haven't done!) to teach a lesson (we've taught the opposite), and you can address the root causes of terrorism, but you can't win a war against an idea. Even in Iraq, we don't have a war. We have an occupation. We 'won' the brief war when we deposed Sadaam. How do you win a prolonged occupation?
2. The media is not liberal. The media is not conservative. The media is CORPORATE, wholly owned, operated and directed by big conglomerate parent companies that seek ratings and profits. Period.
And as far as encouraging or discourging terrorism, this "collateral damage" is pretty much like trying to put out a fire by dousing it with gasoline.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
We are not at war? Odd, I'll have to tell my friends and family that are serving overseas that, they have had a differing opinion than yours. BTW a independent study by UCLA no less concluded that newspeople are by far liberal leaning at around a 75% ratio.
Lone_Gunman
Member
It certainly is not a war in the traditional sense.
How will we tell when the War on Terror is over?
How will we tell when the War on Terror is over?
Cosmoline
Member
Biker said:
Reality does not support this notion, I'm afraid. OBL and his captains are almost all from well-educated, wealthy backgrounds. As were most of the 9/11 terrorists. Far from growing up in the ashes of a war, they grew up in first world privilege. Far from having their family members killed by the US, they had family members who did good business with the US. These facts tend to undercut the notion that we can end the struggle between radical Islam and the west by helping them build their education systems and grow their economies.
It's not PC to say it, but to really end this struggle we have to break Islam's spine.
beerslurpy
member
Lone_Gunman said:
He must have thought that Clinton intentionally missed killing bin laden and instead was aiming for a camel's butt. Because governments never fail to do something through accident or incompetance. Oh wait.
Cosmoline
Member
Biker said:
They ALREADY hate us as infidels and believe as a religious matter that we need to be killed. This minor bombing doesn't change anything one way or the other.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
No, but it certainly reinforces their beliefs and causes moderate Muslims who might be undecided to lean towards their way of thinking.
SIGarmed said:Everytime there is an attack and some bad guys are killed there is somehow only women and children killed. Gee I wonder why?
I mean come on.
Amen.
I think it pretty much goes without saying that Al Qaida terrorist leadership uses innocents (children, women, the elderly, etc.) as shields against attacks.
It's enough to make you wonder if there's actually any sense of honor amongst people like that.
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Where did you read that it was only women and children? When you try to spin the discussion in a different direction by inserting a word like this, you might distract the more simple-minded reader, but you don't detract from the fact that women and children were killed. Regardless of how you try to spin that fact, it remains a problem.
Guy B. Meredith
Member
I think it has been reported repeatedly that these people do not meet at soldiers' clubs or some such but in family compounds. Guess who you find in family compounds?
One way to avoid this might be to hit their vehicles during travel as the Israelis have done. Unfortunately I have not heard that they travel in Bad-Guys-only convoys.
One way to avoid this might be to hit their vehicles during travel as the Israelis have done. Unfortunately I have not heard that they travel in Bad-Guys-only convoys.
horge
Member
Manedwolf said:
The 1899-1946 Philippine Exit Strategy seems to be what the Bush Administration
is following, with technological advancements in information dissemination
shortening the grind to 5-8 years.
Manedwolf said:
If the US cannot avoid collaeral damage (the enemy is a coward who
HIDES among civilians for precisely that end) via remotes, then it all boils
down to having human resources on the ground to kill, or at least verify
target location, prep to a remote strike.
I feel terribly for the innocents affected, and yes, it does fuel the fire.
horge
- Status
