Al Qaeda leaders killed.....again.

[steve s]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/04/2010419175741872481.html

Iraq is claiming they've killed al-Masri and al-Baghdadi. Though they've claimed this before, the U.S. military apparently has DNA tests to back it up.

Steve S

[willhaven]

I actually had someone quote this in a debate over how much "butt we were kicking" in the war on terror. :D

http://www.theonion.com/articles/eighty-percent-of-alqaeda-no-2s-now-dead,5159/
Eighty Percent Of Al-Qaeda No. 2s Now Dead

WASHINGTON, DC—The Pentagon announced Monday that 80 percent of Osama bin Laden's seconds-in-command have been eliminated. "Nearly 1,600 al-Qaeda leaders ranked number two have been wiped out," Lt. Col. Mark Allison said. "That leaves only 400 of Osama bin Laden's right-hand men in the organization." Following the apparent failure to kill bin Laden's No. 2 man Ayman al-Zawahri in a missile strike on a Pakistani border town on Jan. 13, American forces intensified the search for al-Qaeda second-in-command Ahmed Al-Zahnami, or, failing that, No. 2 man Amman al-Zaharani, or No. 2 man Ahmed al-Zafarani.

[kerikiwi]

Al qaeda has had 1600 second-in-command killed? And there are 400 right-hand men remaining?
So, there are probably a helluva lot of thirds ready to step up, not to mention the numerous left-hand men.

[Quad4_72]

Al qaeda has had 1600 second-in-command killed? And there are 400 right-hand men remaining?
So, there are probably a helluva lot of thirds ready to step up, not to mention the numerous left-hand men.

Its a joke.

[kerikiwi]

Its a joke.

So was mine. ;)

[Darth Rotor]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/04/2010419175741872481.html

Iraq is claiming they've killed al-Masri and al-Baghdadi. Though they've claimed this before, the U.S. military apparently has DNA tests to back it up.

Steve S
How did Hercules defeat the hydra?

[Ryokan]

How did Hercules defeat the hydra?

By making up a myth about it?

:p

[DC]

By making up a myth about it?

:p

LOL
literally

[Fishstick]

How did Hercules defeat the hydra?

iddqd

[Darth Rotor]

iddqd
Dear Mister Cryptic:

I will guess at what iddqd means: "I don't dare quote dat"

Am I close?

Your elaboration would be most appreciated.

DR

[quixotecoyote]

Dear Mister Cryptic:I will guess at what iddqd means: "I don't dare quote dat"

Am I close?

Your elaboration would be most appreciated.DR

It's the code for godmode on the original Doom. I hadn't read or heard it in years and it made me laugh.

eta: Also, google would have told you that. :)

[Darth Rotor]

It's the code for godmode on the original Doom. I hadn't read or heard it in years and it made me laugh.

eta: Also, google would have told you that. :)
Thanks! :) (Hmm, does that mean that "There is no cow level" is now "tincl" ... pronounced tinkle? ) Also, now that I asked in thread, more people than me are in on the joke. ;)

@ Fishstick: nice one. Had I been a Doom player I'd have probably reacted as QC did.

DR

[Peephole]

iddqd
Well played, sir. http://users.telenet.be/peephole/emoticons/emot-golfclap.gif

[Peephole]

March 3, 2007
The leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaeda-inspired group that challenged the authority of Iraq's government, was captured Friday in a raid on the western outskirts of Baghdad, an Iraqi military spokesman said.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was arrested along with several other suspects in a raid in the town of Abu Ghraib, said Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the Baghdad security operation. Al-Moussawi said al-Baghdadi admitted his identity, as did another "of the terrorists" who confirmed "that the one in our hands is al-Baghdadi."

http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/210621
May 3, 2007
BAGHDAD - A senior Iraqi official said Thursday that the leader of an al-Qaida front group had been killed in a clash with Iraqi security forces north of Baghdad, but the U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.

Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal of the Interior Ministry said Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was killed Wednesday night in a battle with security forces north of Baghdad. Al-Baghdadi heads the Islamic State of Iraq, which includes al-Qaida and seven smaller groups.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1Y1-105900902.html
April 27, 2009

Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of al Qaeda’s puppet Islamic State of Iraq, was captured after a two-month-long intelligence operation, Iraq’s prime minister said.

Last week, the Ministry of Defense reported Baghdadi was captured during a raid by Iraqi forces.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/al_qaeda_leader_abu.php#ixzz0legOY2ke

April 20, 2010

Two leaders of the Sunni insurgent group al Qaeda in Iraq have been killed in an air strike carried out by American troops, Iraqi and U.S. officials announced Monday.

The deaths of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, as the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq is known, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the alias of the head of an umbrella group that includes al Qaeda in Iraq, should disrupt insurgent attacks inside the country, officials said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/04/20/MN391D12P1.DTL#ixzz0lehSsjqp

Spring is Omar al-Baghdadi's least favourite season.

But don't worry, this time they totally captured/killed him, for reals!

[dudalb]

Since you seem to be violenly opposed to America taking ANY action except a UN Resollution against Al Qaida, I would like for Peephole to tell us what exactly the US should have done after 9/11.

[kerikiwi]

Since you seem to be violenly opposed to America taking ANY action except a UN Resollution against Al Qaida, I would like for Peephole to tell us what exactly the US should have done after 9/11.

I would guess suggestions would not include attacking a country which was in no way involved.

[Peephole]

Since you seem to be violenly opposed to America taking ANY action except a UN Resollution against Al Qaida, I would like for Peephole to tell us what exactly the US should have done after 9/11.
Well, I wasn't really making a point, just mocking wartime propaganda, but since you asked:

Increase airport and airplane security, have a functioning military defense, perform competent criminal investigations, prosecute terrorists under fair trials, get better intelligence, close down Al Qaeda bank accounts, execute limited military actions against Al Qaeda training camps, revision the US's relationship with dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, stop the blanket support for Israel, work towards a Middle East peace plan and stop bombing or threatening half the muslim world.

Those are the first things that come to mind.

[kerikiwi]

Well, I wasn't really making a point, just mocking wartime propaganda, but since you asked:

Increase airport and airplane security, have a functioning military defense, perform competent criminal investigations, prosecute terrorists under fair trials, get better intelligence, close down Al Qaeda bank accounts, execute limited military actions against Al Qaeda training camps, revision the US's relationship with dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, stop the blanket support for Israel, work towards a Middle East peace plan and stop bombing or threatening half the muslim world.

Those are the first things that come to mind.

I was right.

[Darth Rotor]

and stop bombing or threatening half the muslim world.
Hard to stop what you aren't doing.

False statement much?

*Note's poster's name*

Never mind. :p

DR

[Peephole]

Let's see, just the past ten years it's been:

-Iraq
-Iran
-Afghanistan
-Pakistan
-Sudan
-Yemen

and Israel joins in with:

-the Palestinian territories
-Syria
-Lebanon

[dudalb]

In other words, roll over and play dead for the Islamic fundies, just like the Euros are doing.

[Darth Rotor]

Let's see, just the past ten years it's been:
Let's watch your failure in slow motion.
what exactly the US should have done after 9/11.
You responded in part "stop bombing or threatening half the Muslim World."

We were not, at the time, bombing or threatening half the Muslim World, so we could not stop doing that as a response.

Understand, or will you continue with your habit of willful ignorance?

and Israel joins in with:
Irrelevant regarding what the US should, or should not, do in response to 9-11.

Your foaming at the mouth act isn't particulary admirable.

DR

[dudalb]

Funny how it all comes back to Israel with these Lefty Euros, does'nt it?
When they say that the US should have a more "even handed" policy toward the Israel/Palestinian issue, I tell them "we will if you will",since although they won't admit it, they hate Israel and would be happy to see it's destruction, whether through a residual anti semitism or thrist for Arab oil I won't speculate.

[NWO Sentryman]

If we dropped Peephold in the Drakaverse :eek:, he'd probably say the draka are only impaling and enslaving due to us policy and not an inherent desire for world domination.

So you'd probably have us roll over and be barcoded by the Draka as well as pay danegeld to the vikings because of our support for the Byzantine Empire.

Oh wait, don't people complain about militarisation of the police? :rolleyes: So how the heck are they to arrest Bin Laden if the govt is sheltering him? C'mon, the Taliban and AQ were joined at the hip and the chances of them surrendering them to bobbies on the beat were similar to Sealion succeeding.

[McHrozni]

How did Hercules defeat the hydra?

By cauterizing the wounds with a torch. How does that help us, exactly? :)

McHrozni

[kerikiwi]

Funny how it all comes back to Israel with these Lefty Euros, does'nt it?

You aren't referring to Peephole, clearly, because s/he listed 11 things, one of which referred to Israel. A far cry from 'a few' much less 'all'.
So who is the Lefty Euro?

[Darth Rotor]

By cauterizing the wounds with a torch. How does that help us, exactly? :)

McHrozni
Not sure, but if that model can be adapted, rather than continually chopping off heads as they grow, a chance to take down the beast becomes available.

Or, just play whack-a-mole for the foreseeable future. :p

DR

[Peephole]

In other words, roll over and play dead for the Islamic fundies, just like the Euros are doing.
Arresting Al Qaeda members and taking military action when necessary is obviously "rolling over".

But hey, good thing the current policies have prevented terrorism across the globe!
We were not, at the time, bombing or threatening half the Muslim World, so we could not stop doing that as a response.
You really think those 9 countries aren't a significant part of the muslim world? There's 400 million people that live in them...
If we dropped Peephold in the Drakaverse :eek:, he'd probably say the draka are only impaling and enslaving due to us policy and not an inherent desire for world domination.

So you'd probably have us roll over and be barcoded by the Draka as well as pay danegeld to the vikings because of our support for the Byzantine Empire.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh wait, don't people complain about militarisation of the police? :rolleyes: So how the heck are they to arrest Bin Laden if the govt is sheltering him? C'mon, the Taliban and AQ were joined at the hip and the chances of them surrendering them to bobbies on the beat were similar to Sealion succeeding.
You should read what I wrote more closely.

[thaiboxerken]

Since you seem to be violenly opposed to America taking ANY action except a UN Resollution against Al Qaida, I would like for Peephole to tell us what exactly the US should have done after 9/11.

Rebuild the towers, go after Al Queda, increase security measures without imposing on our own citizens rights and move on. Instead, we have no towers, we went after Iraq and crapped all over US citizens rights.

[NWO Sentryman]

Rebuild the towers, go after Al Queda, increase security measures without imposing on our own citizens rights and move on. Instead, we have no towers, we went after Iraq and crapped all over US citizens rights.

you seem to think that rebuilding the towers can be done like it was Age of Empires or some other RTS.

Then only after years of rebuilding do we go after Al-Qaeda :confused:, wouldn't they have consolidated their power base in the ME? :eek:

Besides, how many FEMA camps are there? how many times have you been taken away in the middle of the night? :eek:

[DC]

In other words, roll over and play dead for the Islamic fundies, just like the Euros are doing.

LOL

no that wasnt what he said.

[DC]

Funny how it all comes back to Israel with these Lefty Euros, does'nt it?
When they say that the US should have a more "even handed" policy toward the Israel/Palestinian issue, I tell them "we will if you will",since although they won't admit it, they hate Israel and would be happy to see it's destruction, whether through a residual anti semitism or thrist for Arab oil I won't speculate.

you brush clearly has excess width

[NWO Sentryman]

LOL

no that wasnt what he said.

what peephole was adovcating was paying danegeld to future jihadists, namely stop supporting israel and withdraw entirely from the middle East. It was like King Athelred giving in to the vikings because of his ancestors defeating the vikings in various wars and supporting the Byzantine empire.

They seem to think that a few constables and bobbie on the beat can stop jihaidists.

[kerikiwi]

what peephole was adovcating was paying danegeld to future jihadists, namely stop supporting israel and withdraw entirely from the middle East. It was like King Athelred giving in to the vikings because of his ancestors defeating the vikings in various wars and supporting the Byzantine empire.

They seem to think that a few constables and bobbie on the beat can stop jihaidists.

Your post is somewhat incoherent.
Can you quote exactly where Peephole (or anyone else) was advocating the things you claim?

[DC]

what peephole was adovcating was paying danegeld to future jihadists, namely stop supporting israel and withdraw entirely from the middle East. It was like King Athelred giving in to the vikings because of his ancestors defeating the vikings in various wars and supporting the Byzantine empire.

They seem to think that a few constables and bobbie on the beat can stop jihaidists.

ah ok i didnt know Peephole was advocating such things. he must be nuts.
in what post did he do that? can you quote it? after you quoted it for kerikiwi :D

[kerikiwi]

ah ok i didnt know Peephole was advocating such things. he must be nuts.
in what post did he do that? can you quote it?

Get in line! I asked first. :D

[DC]

Get in line! I asked first. :D

sorry i stand here directly behind you in line :D

[thaiboxerken]

you seem to think that rebuilding the towers can be done like it was Age of Empires or some other RTS.

No. But it's been 7 yrs, and the rebuilding of the towers has not happened, why?


Then only after years of rebuilding do we go after Al-Qaeda :confused:, wouldn't they have consolidated their power base in the ME? :eek:

Onlly after? Did I say that. I believe our country has the ability to multi-task, don't you?


Besides, how many FEMA camps are there? how many times have you been taken away in the middle of the night? :eek:

WTF are you talking about?

[Travis]

No. But it's been 7 yrs, and the rebuilding of the towers has not happened, why?

Rebuilding the towers would have been stupid. They were ugly to begin with. The buildings that are under construction now are much nicer.

WTF are you talking about?

The implication that all Americans lost all our civil rights and the US has turned into something worse than the Stalinist USSR.


I still think it's sad that it took 9/11 for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I was pushing for their invasion for years before it happened.

[thaiboxerken]

Rebuilding the towers would have been stupid. They were ugly to begin with. The buildings that are under construction now are much nicer.

Are they WTC buildings now?


The implication that all Americans lost all our civil rights and the US has turned into something worse than the Stalinist USSR.

No one implied this. I dunno if there is enough straw to build this one. However, we did lose a few rights.. it has something to do with search and seizure and privacy.


I still think it's sad that it took 9/11 for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I was pushing for their invasion for years before it happened.

I don't think we needed to invade these countries to get to Al Queda. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and I've yet to hear a good reason as to why we should've invaded.

[Darth Rotor]

You really think those 9 countries aren't a significant part of the muslim world? There's 400 million people that live in them...
Go back and read what I wrote. Your response had zero relation to it.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
That has been obvious for some time.

DR

[Garrette]

Not sure, but if that model can be adapted, rather than continually chopping off heads as they grow, a chance to take down the beast becomes available. "Cauterization" is in not assuming that cutting off the head is sufficient. Cut the head but also slice the body even after the head is gone; it is then when the body is most vulnerable. Not defeated, but vulnerable. Constant pressure during the turmoil following decapitation wins it, ultimately (ignoring for the moment all the other non-kinetic bits of this type of fight).


Or, just play whack-a-mole for the foreseeable future. :pStopping at the head leads to that.

[CORed]

Rebuild the towers, go after Al Queda, increase security measures without imposing on our own citizens rights and move on. Instead, we have no towers, we went after Iraq and crapped all over US citizens rights.

I agree with the above, especially rebuilding the towers, IMO, those towers should have been rebuilt, as fast as was humanly possible, right where the old ones were, maybe beefed up structurally to make them harder to knock down again. I can't think of a better way to give a giant middle finger to Al Queda.

[Darth Rotor]

I agree with the above, especially rebuilding the towers, IMO, those towers should have been rebuilt, as fast as was humanly possible, right where the old ones were, maybe beefed up structurally to make them harder to knock down again. I can't think of a better way to give a giant middle finger to Al Queda.
If you or Ken had checked, you would have noted the following:

The World Trade Center (WTC) was a complex in Lower Manhattan in New York City whose seven buildings were destroyed in 2001 in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The site is currently being rebuilt with six new skyscrapers and a memorial to the casualties of the attacks.

It wasn't the government's role to rebuild the towers, a commercial venture, just as the government didn't build it in the first place.

It was the place of those who had in interest in replacing or restoring the WTC. From design to completion of the original took from early 1960's to 1971. Seven or Eight years. Given that the site, from destruction to any initial project kicking off had a time lag as thing were removed, cleaned up, etc, and then all the legal wrangling over insurance, funding, rights, and city approval of a design, you seem a bit hasty in demanding a rapid replacement.

Major building projects like this don't happen overnight.

The WTC is being rebuilt. The finger will be lifted in due course.

And, if my powers of estimation are worth anything, will be the target of an attack once erected.

DR

[Pardalis]

Let's see, just the past ten years it's been:

-Iraq

OK, debatable.

-Iran
Has the US bombed Iran? When was that?

-AfghanistanSo we should have left Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all their training facilities in Afghanistan alone after 9/11?

-PakistanHas the US bombed Pakistan? When was that?

-SudanAl Qaeda has cells there, you say we should leave them alone?

-YemenAl Qaeda has cells there, you say we should leave them alone?

and Israel joins inirrelevant

[Pardalis]

execute limited military actions against Al Qaeda training camps

Why "limited"?

Clinton ordered "limited" strikes on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1998, look at the results.

[Peephole]

Pardalis, I'm not saying each of those specific military actions are wrong, I just think that these actions altogether create a very bad image of the U.S. (and its allies).
Why "limited"?

Clinton ordered "limited" strikes on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1998, look at the results.
I didn't say "any limited military action", I said "limited military action". I think airstrikes should be used a lot less frequently and there should be a greater reliance on ground forces.
Has the US bombed Iran? When was that?
I said threatened.
Has the US bombed Pakistan? When was that?
Really?

Seriously, there's been dozens of attacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

And regarding Israel, the U.S. is linked to it for obvious reasons, whether you agree with those policies or not, they have the effect that the two countries get lumped together.

[Peephole]

Go back and read what I wrote. Your response had zero relation to it.
I'll try and explain it to you, again: I think the U.S. and Israel need to stop bombing and threatening so many countries.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with this or not, I don't see how you can say that nine countries in ten years isn't a lot.

[willhaven]

Clinton ordered "limited" strikes on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1998, look at the results.Looks like whether or actions were limited or "boots on the ground" the results are about the same.

[Darth Rotor]

I'll try and explain it to you, again: I think the U.S. and Israel need to stop bombing and threatening so many countries.
And once again, you failed to read what I wrote, and comprehend it, in formulating your reply. In other words, that opinion of yours isn't related to what you replied to.
Now, whether you agree or disagree with this or not, I don't see how you can say that nine countries in ten years isn't a lot.
"Nine coutries in ten years is a lot."

Vacuously done, Peephole.

By the way, the US and Israel are, once again, not the topic of the question, which was "what should the US have done in response to 9-11."

You remain stuck on fail.

DR

[Skeptic]

The problem with all this is that the analysis makes it seem as if Hamas, Hizbullah, Al-Quaeda, etc., were sitting around, minding their own business, not bothering anybody, when all of a sudden the evil USA and Israel attacked them, just for the heck of it.

But the real reason the USA's attacks are global is very simple: the Jihad is global. If anybody bears moral responsibility for the USA's global actions, it is the total lack of respect Al Quaeda and world Jihad has for national borders and their desire to set up cells wherever they can.

One might as well list the number of countries the USA sent troops into in WWII and then claim that it "makes the USA and its allies look very bad". What an aggressive, imperialist country!

[Pardalis]

I didn't say "any limited military action", I said "limited military action". I think airstrikes should be used a lot less frequently and there should be a greater reliance on ground forces.

Ground forces = invasion, right?

If you want more "ground forces", that means more US military bases around the world, where they can get to where they have to be faster.

The presence of American troops in Muslim countries is the reason OBL and his gang wanted to attack the US in the first place! Now you want more military presence in the Middle East? How's that going to pan out in the Muslim world?

So what is it you want?

You don't want to attack the terrorists from the air, but you want more troops in difficult regions where they are likely to be killed or to make more mistakes and endanger the population?

I said threatened.And? Do you want Iran to have the bomb or not?

Don't you want Iran to respect its engagements it singed in the Non-proliferation treaty?

And it's not the US who is threatening Iran, the entire UN is, and for good reason (except China, Russia and Venezuela).


Really?

Seriously, there's been dozens of attacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_PakistanAgainst Al Qaeda targets, and if you read your own link, alot of top Al Qaeda generals were successfully targeted.

You got a problem with killing terrorist leaders?

Do you want to leave Al Qaeda alone so it can regroup and gain forces in Pakistan?

And regarding Israel, the U.S. is linked to it for obvious reasons, I don't care, it's irrelevant to the topic. Israel is an independent nation.

[Pardalis]

Looks like whether or actions were limited or "boots on the ground" the results are about the same.

The problem is that Peephole thinks "boots on the ground" is limited action. :boggled:

That's probably why Belium keeps getting invaded.

ETA: or maybe Peephole wants there to be only one squad of US Marines to go around the world by foot to find and kill top Al Qaeda leaders with knives (because guns and bombs would be too unfair). That's his idea of the response to 9/11.

[barrymore]

By the way, the US and Israel are, once again, not the topic of the question, which was "what should the US have done in response to 9-11."

You remain stuck on fail.


But the US' response should take into consideration why 9/11 happened in the first place. Look, you can go into an infinite regress trying to figure out who is right and who is wrong (just like you can with Israel & Palestine), but you (in the general sense) are being dishonest if you think the US is some innocent bystander here. Should the US have engaged in self-defense? Absolutely. But it also requires addressing the root problem, which as far as I can tell, was only exacerbated by invading Iraq.

The problem with all this is that the analysis makes it seem as if Hamas, Hizbullah, Al-Quaeda, etc., were sitting around, minding their own business, not bothering anybody, when all of a sudden the evil USA and Israel attacked them, just for the heck of it.

But the real reason the USA's attacks are global is very simple: the Jihad is global. If anybody bears moral responsibility for the USA's global actions, it is the total lack of respect Al Quaeda and world Jihad has for national borders and their desire to set up cells wherever they can.

One might as well list the number of countries the USA sent troops into in WWII and then claim that it "makes the USA and its allies look very bad". What an aggressive, imperialist country!

And the US was just sitting around minding its own business? Look, I do not want to get into a morality debate over foreign affairs, but it is quite easy to see how Muslim peoples could be upset over Americans mingling in the region. This does not justify terrorism, but it is not merely motivated for the hate of our "ideals" and "freedoms" as politicians like to spew.

Ground forces = invasion, right?

If you want more "ground forces", that means more US military bases around the world, where they can get to where they have to be faster.

The presence of American troops in Muslim countries is the reason OBL and his gang wanted to attack the US in the first place! Now you want more military presence in the Middle East? How's that going to pan out in the Muslim world?

So what is it you want?

You don't want to attack the terrorists from the air, but you want more troops in difficult regions where they are likely to be killed or to make more mistakes and endanger the population?

And? Do you want Iran to have the bomb or not?

Don't you want Iran to respect its engagements it singed in the Non-proliferation treaty?

And it's not the US who is threatening Iran, the entire UN is, and for good reason (except China, Russia and Venezuela).

Against Al Qaeda targets, and if you read your own link, alot of top Al Qaeda generals were successfully targeted.

You got a problem with killing terrorist leaders?

Do you want to leave Al Qaeda alone so it can regroup and gain forces in Pakistan?

I don't care, it's irrelevant to the topic. Israel is an independent nation.

Brute-force warfare is obsolete in this day and age. Much more resources should be concentrated on intelligence gathering, covert (civilian) and special (military) operations, cyber & information warfare, drones, etc.

Do I think it is as simple as telling the troops to go home and only having the CIA, Spec Ops, and Computer whizzes wreaking havoc on global terrorism? Of course not, but military leaders and politicians have an incentive to keep the military big and engage in these bloated endeavors out of self-interest, much like managers of corporations have incentive to bloat the size of their department.

Just because America is GREAT does not mean it does not commit numerous and costly mistakes. Our leaders and citizens are fallible.

[Pardalis]

Brute-force warfare is obsolete in this day and age. Much more resources should be concentrated on intelligence gathering, covert (civilian) and special (military) operations, cyber & information warfare, drones, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the end of the day, IMO brute force is necessary to kill these guys. You can use the intel you gather through civilian assets and special ops and cyber technology, but you can't go and kill them one by one covertly, especially when the ones who are harboring them are in control of an entire country.

Also, for some reason Peephole doesn't seem to agree with drone attacks.

[barrymore]

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the end of the day, IMO brute force is necessary to kill these guys. You can use the intel you gather through civilian assets and special ops and cyber technology, but you can't go and kill them one by one covertly, especially when the ones who are harboring them are in control of an entire country.

Also, for some reason Peephole doesn't seem to agree with drone attacks.

I somewhat agree when it comes to Afghanistan. To me, the Taliban and terrorist groups are one in the same. But that could not be said with Iraq, which is why brute force was a terrible idea.

What is your opinion on other states that do not explicitly sponsor terrorism but do have problems? Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. What should the US do, if anything?

[Pardalis]

What is your opinion on other states that do not explicitly sponsor terrorism but do have problems? Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. What should the US do, if anything?

Actually, isn't it what they do in Yemen, Sudan and Pakistan? Covert operations, covert assassinations, and drone attacks.

But again, Peephole seems to have a problem with that too.

I'm not sure what exactly he wants the US military to do. Obviously he doesn't like invasion forces, he doesn't like bombings, he doesn't like covert assassinations, he dislikes drones... Well, I'm afraid there's really nothing left that can be done that will satisfy him.

I think he just doesn't like the US military, period.

[Darth Rotor]

But it also requires addressing the root problem, which as far as I can tell, was only exacerbated by invading Iraq.

Sorry, the root problem was around long before 9-11, but "should the US invade Iraq" as a response to 9-11 is a good question. It was a good question in 2002, in 2003, and now, and not related to Peephole continuing to play the fool.
Brute-force warfare is obsolete in this day and age. Unfounded assertion. It is part of the complete package. Brute force is an element of warfare, American style, it is not the be all and end all, as fools and idiots like to insist who know bloody eff all about it: it being war in general, and how America trains and organizes for war. My own ides on how to respond to 9-11 were very different, and absent the strikes on and in Afghanistan and tossing out the Taliban, would have had an incredibly low military signature, and a lot of assassination and knife work ... to include anyone and everyone related unto the third degree to anyone in on the attacks. (The inspiration for this idea is the quasi factual, quasi fictional, account of how the cultural Arab mindset is presented in a book by Ranulph Fiennes: The Feather Men).
Just because America is GREAT does not mean it does not commit numerous and costly mistakes. Our leaders and citizens are fallible.
Sure. Now, who was it who asserted that leaders and citizens in America are infallible? Not me, so who are you talking to with that line? The Scarecrow of Oz?

But making mistakes is as true now as it was in Jefferson's day.

For example, his gun platforms as a cost effective naval method if you like to laugh. Great book on that era: Six Frigates.

DR

[barrymore]

Sorry, the root problem was around long before 9-11, but "should the US invade Iraq" as a response to 9-11 is a good question. It was a good question in 2002, in 2003, and now, and not related to Peephole continuing to play the fool.

Exactly. The root problem is strong US foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East. Right or wrong, people are going to get pissed off about it.

Unfounded assertion. It is part of the complete package. Brute force is an element of warfare, American style, it is not the be all and end all, as fools and idiots like to insist who know bloody eff all about it: it being war in general, and how America trains and organizes for war. My own ides on how to respond to 9-11 were very different, and absent the strikes on and in Afghanistan and tossing out the Taliban, would have had an incredibly low military signature, and a lot of assassination and knife work ... to include anyone and everyone related unto the third degree to anyone in on the attacks. (The inspiration for this idea is the quasi factual, quasi fictional, account of how the cultural Arab mindset is presented in a book by Ranulph Fiennes: The Feather Men).

Have brute force, all-out invasions worked? My opinion is no. It is not black and white--there are good and bad things about them, but on the whole, I do not believe they have accomplished the objectives set forth by the administration(s).

Sure. Now, who was it who asserted that leaders and citizens in America are infallible? Not me, so who are you talking to with that line? The Scarecrow of Oz?

The line was not directed at you.

[Almo]

Since you seem to be violenly opposed to America taking ANY action except a UN Resollution against Al Qaida, I would like for Peephole to tell us what exactly the US should have done after 9/11.

I would guess suggestions would not include attacking a country which was in no way involved.

That.

[gumboot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan[/url]


:eye-poppi

Really?

Your evidence that the USA was "threatening" Pakistan prior to 9/11 is that after 9/11 they carried out air strikes in Pakistan with the cooperation of the Pakistani government and flying from a Pakistani airfield.

Wow.

[gumboot]

Have brute force, all-out invasions worked? My opinion is no.


I think the invasion worked. The problem is the administration didn't really grasp what the point of such an invasion is, and failed to follow it up appropriately. What has failed for the US is their inability to conduct a suitable occupation.

[barrymore]

I think the invasion worked. The problem is the administration didn't really grasp what the point of such an invasion is, and failed to follow it up appropriately. What has failed for the US is their inability to conduct a suitable occupation.

What is the difference? An invasion implies occupation, at least for a short period of time. If the occupation is so bad that it makes the whole thing a disaster, then the invasion does not make sense either.

[Darth Rotor]

Exactly. The root problem is strong US foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Middle East. Right or wrong, people are going to get pissed off about it.
In geopolitics, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. So, you pursue policies that are in your national interest. And sometimes, your policy makers come up with strange ways to do that.
Have brute force, all-out invasions worked? My opinion is no. It is not black and white--there are good and bad things about them, but on the whole, I do not believe they have accomplished the objectives set forth by the administration(s).
You put those words together as though they mean something. Why was it required to use the words "brute force" with invasion? That is like saying "An apple flavored appled pie."

As to achieving aims, I tend to agree with you: as it stands now, some objective have not been met, and are not likely to be met, particularly in Afghanistan. In other news, Manuel Noriega is heading to France to stand trial. That invasion seems to have worked, though its aims were quite modest as compared to the two operations currently underway.


DR