October Surprise? "Senior al Qaeda militants" killed by U.S

Cross post from LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2586999

The report so far is that there were 80 deaths. It should be easy to blow this one right back at them.

They killed 80 people, none of which had been sentenced to death by a jury of their peers. This is called murder. Why do people accept that? The government just murdered 80 brown people. If this bombing had been of a Catholic school that was harboring Provisional Irish Republican Army terrorists in Boston, people would flip out. But that school would be in a majority white country, which cannot rightly be bombed. People would say things like: "How could you kill those children just because there was a suspected criminal near by?" "Suspected? You killed him because you SUSPECTED him of a crime?" "It appeared that he was in the building? You blew up a school because of the POSSIBILITY that a criminal was inside?" This is state terrorism, plain and simple.

And wish they would stop blathering about the UK airline plot that wasn't too. :eyes:

Come, come KKKarl, this won't turn it around this time.

...and it is definitely Zawahiri. I have no idea where they keep finding these other #2s. Maybe they're pulling them out of their... oh, nevermind.

"Who's Number 1?"

"I dunno, but let's pull out another Number 2!!"

Smells like 6' of BS to me.

WTF? Funny that the Pakistani army killed 60 people in a school. Nice new spin on the same story.

They are fed up with this stupid war.

So sad.

Even Hitler didn't bomb churches or church-related institutions.

He blew the shit out of England. He attempted to kill as many civilians as possible. Leaving the churches standing doesn't make that any better. Hitler murdering people in a church is no different than Hitler murdering people not in a church.

I was not defending Hitler, and I resent your insinuation that I was.
Do you have a reply for the part about the OP's post?

FYI: My husband grew up in London (1950's), and everyone marveled at the fact that Hitler didn't
purposely target hospitals, churches, or schools. As evil as he was (I have a master's degree
in French & German, and I've studied modern German history extensively), he didn't
target children.

Yes, Hitler was evil, and targeting children anytime, any place is also evil.

BTW, thanks to all of you PMers!

I just think that dropping a bomb on a school, church, or hospital is just the same as dropping a bomb on any other building. As for the rest of the post, I think it's a superb headline. It illustrates perfectly my opposition to bombing. It's quite true and that should be the major issue concerned with this bombing.

churches and schools.

It just shows how miserably they and their policies have failed.

Musharraf is on thin ice, always a target of assassination, and the pakistanis vehemently denied ANY involvement by the US (wink-wink).

for our goofball president to go around touting this as a US SUCCESS, is only weakening Musharraf's position, and strengthening the resolve of the "terrah-ists" to try harder to kill him..

then THEY will have the nukes..


yeh.. I feel "safer" already :eyes:

These folks attacked us, and have sworn to destroy us. Unless this was a bogus attack, it's quite legitimate.

bad guys are inside.

Yes there is a reason "they" hate us. And no, it ain't our "freedoms".

"War is hell" - General Sherman

Awful choices have to be made. Wars should only be started as a last resort - exactly what we DID NOT do in Iraq.

al Qaeda is a different story - they killed thousands of Americans, and have vowed to kill as many more as they can. There is no option but to have war. In war, it is necessary to destroy the bad guys, and to totally shatter the will of the enemy population, even the civilians, to fight.

I don't like it. It means that we have failed to avert this situation. But we are here and it is now, and there are no alternatives that are less awful.

I would suggest that you read "9/11" by Noam Chomsky. It is a short collection of interviews with linguistics professor and foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky between September 12 and October 1, 2001. In it he very effectively explains why a war will not help in any meaningful way to prevent terrorism. In fact, he says that the worst thing our country could have done would have been to invade Afghanistan (personally, I disagree: I say the worst thing we possibly could have done would be to invade Iraq, but that's a different matter.) He recounts effective efforts against terrorism in the past, none of which involve the dropping of bombs. He explains the effects that the dropping of bombs will have; among them are more terrorists. His main point is to warn us to do no harm: it is imperative that in fighting terrorism we do not create terrorists. He lists some of the complaints that Arabs, both rich and poor, have against the United States. The rich are important because they fund terrorism; the poor are important because they put their lives on the line as terrorists. Not surprisingly, one of the major complaints against us is that we are a little bomb-happy, and Arabs tend to be the victims of those bombs. (This is not to say that Osama's greivence with us over human life. Osama, to put it bluntly, is a greedy bastard. He is after only one thing: oil. There is nothing we can do (save make him the supreme dictator of a pan-Arab state) to make him leave us alone. But we don't have to please him, because he is a criminal and should be in a jail cell were he can never hurt anyone again.) The point is to make sure that the fewest number of people possible are willing to take action to harm the United States. And that simply does not involve the dropping of bombs.

OY.

First of all, we have no proof that Zawahiri was even present. Secondly, Zawahiri has not stood trial and therefore should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Thirdly, many other people were killed in this attack. You wouldn't think it was legitimate if he were hiding in an American school filled with Anglo children, so why is it legitimate to kill a bunch of Pakistani children? The only legitimate course of action is to arrest him and try him for his crimes. That's what we do with white terrorists. Why shouldn't we do it with Arab terrorists? What's more, trying and convicting a terrorist doesn't kill any innocent children. It does not create any more terrorists. His supporters may be angry that he was tried, but no one is going to be so angry as to attack us who otherwise would not. That's the only legitimate way to fight terrorism.

we've killed the #2 guy?

Not to mention the Number Threes! :rofl:

with the number three guy, whom we kill every four to six weeks (sometimes even more frequently.)

they missed

AGAIN !!

...to al Qaeda than bin Laden. Osama is the person with the money, but he's using it to carry out what is essentially Ayman Zawahiri's agenda. Zawahiri is the spiritual leader of the movement. Or at least he used to be. It's hard to tell any more with every terrorist organisation in the world referring to itself as "al Qaeda of <location>." Kind of like McDonald's franchises.

all controlled by a central cabal of diabolical bastards. All those minor al Qaeda branches may just be using the name for credibility.

But that doesn't necessarily diminish Zawahiri or his ideas. This idea of an almost infinite number of #2 al Qaeda operatives is a creation of the Western media and the US government, not the Islamists, many of whom still seem to have a huge amout of respect for him.

In our ALLY PAKISTAN.

WHEW! Thank Gawd george w. "I'm a MFing idiot" invaded IRAQ!

Every time the war is mentioned, Dems gain points and seats.