The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Guns N RockMusic]

It's good news as long as these people:

Among those killed in the attack were two Pakistanis and three Arabs. The attacks were reportedly carried out between 1:45 a.m. and 2 a.m. local time on Thursday.

weren't innocent civilians. I don't see why; if the US army had some sort of knowledge or certainty to where he was; couldn't have just sent one person in undercover to kill him or something. It's slightly wreckless aiming some big fuckin missile at his place of hiding, an action that could have killed many innocent people.

This is the bullshit many of us take offense too.  So you'd risk the lives of one soldier so that he might successfully assinate the leader.  Don't you think that maybe the people in that building were loyal to him and might take offense to his death and retaliate against that lone gun men?  I hate to break it to you, but the US Military cares more about the lives of its troops then the lives of other people.  If we can save the life of one troop and possibly endanger a few "possible civilians", you bet your ass we will.

[Booker Floyd]

the US Military cares more about the lives of its troops then the lives of other people.?

If that were the case, wouldnt it make sense to withdraw the troops?  Because...and I could be wrong...arent U.S. soldiers in Iraq there to essentially protect civilians?  And theyre risking their lives, and dying, for that reason.  So if the U.S. is more interested in preserving the lives of American troops, as you claim, putting them in mortal danger to protect Iraqi lives seems a bit contradictory, doesnt it?

[sandman]

the US Military cares more about the lives of its troops then the lives of other people.?

If that were the case, wouldnt it make sense to withdraw the troops?? Because...and I could be wrong...arent U.S. soldiers in Iraq there to essentially protect civilians?? And theyre risking their lives, and dying, for that reason.? So if the U.S. is more interested in preserving the lives of American troops, as you claim, putting them in mortal danger to protect Iraqi lives seems a bit contradictory, doesnt it?

that's not the only reason the US troops are in iraq.

also, what's the alternative? blowing up the entire country? we can't do that, so your comparison is not fair or valid.

[Guns N RockMusic]

the US Military cares more about the lives of its troops then the lives of other people.?

If that were the case, wouldnt it make sense to withdraw the troops?? Because...and I could be wrong...arent U.S. soldiers in Iraq there to essentially protect civilians?? And theyre risking their lives, and dying, for that reason.? So if the U.S. is more interested in preserving the lives of American troops, as you claim, putting them in mortal danger to protect Iraqi lives seems a bit contradictory, doesnt it?

I stated that the military cares more about its own then foreign civilians.? The military is still under the control of the civilian president who with authorization and support from congress decided to invade Iraq.? They are simply following orders and carrying out the tasks assocaited with their line of work.? To state my claim again, the average servicemen would endanger the lives of several or more foreign innocents(since? it's hard to distinguish between the real and phony) then risk the life of a comrade.

[Booker Floyd]

also, what's the alternative? blowing up the entire country? we can't do that, so your comparison is not fair or valid.

Maybe you missed my first sentence?

If that were the case, wouldnt it make sense to withdraw the troops?

How you leapt to "blowing up the entire country" is just bizarre.

I stated that the military cares more about its own then foreign civilians. 

Then the military would prefer to preserve their own lives than the lives of Iraqis...wouldnt that imply that they might favor withdrawal?

[Guns N RockMusic]

Well of course the troops want to come home, I mean you would have to be bonafide crazy to desire to stay in a war zone.  However, most GIs believe in what we're doing over there and want to leave when the job is finished, less the sacrifices of our fallen be in vain.  You of course have the "hardasses" who want to go get them some, but once the bullets whizz over their head the fun and games are over and little boys become men.

[sandman]

also, what's the alternative? blowing up the entire country? we can't do that, so your comparison is not fair or valid.

Maybe you missed my first sentence?

If that were the case, wouldnt it make sense to withdraw the troops?

How you leapt to "blowing up the entire country" is just bizarre.

I stated that the military cares more about its own then foreign civilians.?

Then the military would prefer to preserve their own lives than the lives of Iraqis...wouldnt that imply that they might favor withdrawal?

ok, i didn't realize you needed everything spelled out for you.

first of all, guns n rock music already showed how ridiculous your point is since the military does not make the decision to invade or not.

secondly, my point was based on that fact - i.e. that the ADMINISTRATION made the decision to remove saddam and help iraq set up a stable system. so don't take my comments out of context and make it seem like i'm implying we should blow up a country.

just admit you made a mistake interpreting gnrm's post, and you followed it up with an incorrect (or stupid) statement.

[Booker Floyd]

I value Lieberman's opinion much more than Murtha since Liberman actually went there and has a first hand account to base his statement on.

So are you claiming that Murtha hasnt been to Iraq?

Just wanted to remind GnRFL...

Also, you might want to send a correction to the author of this Post-Gazette article:

"His many visits to Iraq, he said, had convinced him that Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. "

Heres the authors e-mail: mailto:mreston@nationalpress.com.?

...But what if its true?  I suppose that means you value Murthas opinion since its a first-hand account?

[SLCPUNK]

LOL, imagine that, somebody not knowing facts again.

Besides the big point with Murtha, is that he was very well respected by the right. He was looked upon as a true patriot. When he was bad mouthed on the floor a week or so back, it was booed by all, not just the left. So for Murtha to come out and speak up on this is a big deal. Not just for the left, but for everybody. He is getting his critics like anybody else, but it is a tougher pill to swallow now.

Murtha speaking up is a much bigger deal then you would like to acknowledge I'm sure, but it carries quite a bit of weight.

[Jamie]

It's good news as long as these people:

Among those killed in the attack were two Pakistanis and three Arabs. The attacks were reportedly carried out between 1:45 a.m. and 2 a.m. local time on Thursday.

weren't innocent civilians. I don't see why; if the US army had some sort of knowledge or certainty to where he was; couldn't have just sent one person in undercover to kill him or something. It's slightly wreckless aiming some big fuckin missile at his place of hiding, an action that could have killed many innocent people.

This is the bullshit many of us take offense too.? So you'd risk the lives of one soldier so that he might successfully assinate the leader.? Don't you think that maybe the people in that building were loyal to him and might take offense to his death and retaliate against that lone gun men?? I hate to break it to you, but the US Military cares more about the lives of its troops then the lives of other people.? If we can save the life of one troop and possibly endanger a few "possible civilians", you bet your ass we will.

And it's those kind of people who are "liberating" the Middle East, I have heard so much bullshit from the right on this board about "valuing the life of the Iraqi people" and "you can't have a war without people dying". That's just the fuckin American military way, blow the shit out of absolutely everything and everyone that stands and hopefully you'll kill a few enemies. If you guys really think that this war is a noble one and that war can't be won without casualtys you'd send one guy in to kill one enemy rather than just fuckin blow the shit into something and risk killing innocent people.

[SLCPUNK]

And it's those kind of people who are "liberating" the Middle East, I have heard so much bullshit from the right on this board about "valuing the life of the Iraqi people" and "you can't have a war without people dying". That's just the fuckin American military way, blow the shit out of absolutely everything and everyone that stands and hopefully you'll kill a few enemies. If you guys really think that this war is a noble one and that war can't be won without casualtys you'd send one guy in to kill one enemy rather than just fuckin blow the shit into something and risk killing innocent people.

I find the hypocrisy amazing. I never knew we loved the Iraqi people so much we were willing to march 2000 of our finest over there to die for them. Yet we can't have enough troops here to help when a national tragedy occurs. At the same time, our love of the Iraqi people falls to the side when there is "a job to do". That is (now anyway after WMD fizzled out) "liberate them". The doubletalk from the Bush camp is beyond comprehension; it is delusional.

[RichardNixon]

Nice!?

i think we all can agree this is good news.


Al-qaida #3 killed by CIA missle attack.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The operational commander of al-Qaida and possibly the No. 3 official in the terrorist organization, Hamza Rabia, was killed early Thursday morning by a CIA missile attack on a safehouse in Pakistan, officials told NBC News.

Pakistan's president later confirmed the militant leader's death.

?Yes indeed, 200 percent. I think he was killed the day before yesterday if I?m not wrong,? President Pervez Musharraf told reporters as he arrived in Kuwait on an official visit on Saturday.

While Pakistani officials publicly said Rabia died in a blast caused by explosives stored in a house for bomb-making, officials speaking on condition of anonymity told NBC News he was killed by a CIA missile strike carried out by an unmanned Predator airplane.

Pakistan's government has always been reticent to admit that Predators are used in Pakistani airspace to hunt down al-Qaida operatives.

The sources told NBC News Rabia was one of five men killed at a safehouse located in the village of Asorai, in western Pakistan, near the town of Mirali. Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said Rabia?s remains were identified via a DNA test.

Among those killed in the attack were two Pakistanis and three Arabs. The attacks were reportedly carried out between 1:45 a.m. and 2 a.m. local time on Thursday.

Local residents said that the men were killed by an unknown number of missiles fired by an unmanned Predator aircraft. The witnesses said that missile remnants bearing U.S. markings remain in the area. They also said they had heard six explosions, but it is uncertain how many of these were the result of missile attacks and how many may have been the result of the missiles detonating explosives inside the safehouse.

On Saturday, Pakistan?s Dawn newspaper, citing sources it did not identify, reported that the attack on a mud-walled home near Miran Shah may have been launched from two pilotless planes.

Associates from outside Pakistan retrieved the bodies of Rabia and two other foreigners and buried them in an unknown location, the report said.

The U.S. government confirmed that a missile attack took place, but would not confirm that Rabia was killed.

U.S. officials have said that Rabia succeeded Abu Faraj as operations chief. Rabia was brought into al-Qaida by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's No. 2. Like al-Zawahiri, Rabia is an Egyptian. U.S. officials have described him recently as "top-five al-Qaida" and, as one US official said on Friday, "killing him would be indeed a very big deal."

An intelligence official said U.S. help was involved in tracking Rabia down and ?eliminating the threat? that he embodied. That official also spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

Rabia was the target of another Predator attack on Nov. 5, according to local Pakistani officials. During that strike, in the village of Mosaki, eight people were killed in what is now described as an unsuccessful attempt to kill Rabia. Local officials have told NBC News that the dead included the wife and children of the al-Qaida leader.

Both the village of Asorai, where Thursday's attack took place, and Mosaki, where the November attack took place, are within 45 minutes of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The area is a hiding place for top al-Qaida officials, according to U.S., Pakistani and Afghan officials.

However, officials said they have no clue on the whereabouts of al-Zawahri or Osama bin Laden.

Military officials have said hundreds of Arab, Afghan and Central Asian militants are in North and South Waziristan.

Pakistan ? a key ally of the United States in the war against terrorism ? has deployed thousands of troops in the area, fighting intense battles with militants and killing and capturing several of them.

source: msnbc.com

It doesn't matter. Bin Ladden could be killed tommorow, and that wouldn't matter either. Someone will just take their place.

[sandman]

so i guess we shouldn't fight any type of terrorist behavior. maybe quitting and bowing down to al queda is the way to go.

hell, why even have cops. just forget about all the murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc. i mean afterall, someone else will continue to commit crimes anyway.

brilliant. 

[Prometheus]

if you cna eliminte the power base for the terror groups you will defeat teh terror groups....... where ar ethe power bases? in countries where anti us sentimentant is the greatest....and they mainly are countries where teh population is mis treated or view teh US as the reason for their misfortune. fix these problems and turn around the opnion of the average joe and you wioll see the terror groups slowly get widdled down

[SLCPUNK]

so i guess we shouldn't fight any type of terrorist behavior. maybe quitting and bowing down to al queda is the way to go.

hell, why even have cops. just forget about all the murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc. i mean afterall, someone else will continue to commit crimes anyway.

brilliant. 

Your wit is amazing really.

On the contrary we should fight terrorist behavior. That is why we should not have gone into Iraq.

The irony about the AQ dickhead that was killed this weekend was that he was killed in Pakistan.....not Iraq.

[Charity Case]

It's good news as long as these people:

Among those killed in the attack were two Pakistanis and three Arabs. The attacks were reportedly carried out between 1:45 a.m. and 2 a.m. local time on Thursday.

weren't innocent civilians. I don't see why; if the US army had some sort of knowledge or certainty to where he was; couldn't have just sent one person in undercover to kill him or something. It's slightly wreckless aiming some big fuckin missile at his place of hiding, an action that could have killed many innocent people.

This is the bullshit many of us take offense too.? So you'd risk the lives of one soldier so that he might successfully assinate the leader.? Don't you think that maybe the people in that building were loyal to him and might take offense to his death and retaliate against that lone gun men?? I hate to break it to you, but the US Military cares more about the lives of its troops then the lives of other people.? If we can save the life of one troop and possibly endanger a few "possible civilians", you bet your ass we will.

And it's those kind of people who are "liberating" the Middle East, I have heard so much bullshit from the right on this board about "valuing the life of the Iraqi people" and "you can't have a war without people dying". That's just the fuckin American military way, blow the shit out of absolutely everything and everyone that stands and hopefully you'll kill a few enemies. If you guys really think that this war is a noble one and that war can't be won without casualtys you'd send one guy in to kill one enemy rather than just fuckin blow the shit into something and risk killing innocent people.

Your lack on knowledge regarding this war and conflict in general is amazing.  Rambo was a movie, not real life.  And I'd love to hear how a war with nation building involved can be doner without casulaties.  Please enlighten us.  Also please give an example where we "just fuckin blow the shit into something and risk killing innocent people".  I'd say we take mor eprecaution than any other nation during any other conflict when it comes to collateral damage.  We go out of our way to minimize loss of innocent life.  If we didn't, we could end this insurgency in 2 seconds.

[Booker Floyd]

Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake
German Citizen Released After Months in 'Rendition'

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 4, 2005; Page A01

In May 2004, the White House dispatched the U.S. ambassador in Germany to pay an unusual visit to that country's interior minister. Ambassador Daniel R. Coats carried instructions from the State Department transmitted via the CIA's Berlin station because they were too sensitive and highly classified for regular diplomatic channels, according to several people with knowledge of the conversation.

Coats informed the German minister that the CIA had wrongfully imprisoned one of its citizens, Khaled Masri, for five months, and would soon release him, the sources said. There was also a request: that the German government not disclose what it had been told even if Masri went public. The U.S. officials feared exposure of a covert action program designed to capture terrorism suspects abroad and transfer them among countries, and possible legal challenges to the CIA from Masri and others with similar allegations.
 
The Masri case, with new details gleaned from interviews with current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials, offers a rare study of how pressure on the CIA to apprehend al Qaeda members after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has led in some instances to detention based on thin or speculative evidence. The case also shows how complicated it can be to correct errors in a system built and operated in secret.

The CIA, working with other intelligence agencies, has captured an estimated 3,000 people, including several key leaders of al Qaeda, in its campaign to dismantle terrorist networks. It is impossible to know, however, how many mistakes the CIA and its foreign partners have made.

Unlike the military's prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- where 180 prisoners have been freed after a review of their cases -- there is no tribunal or judge to check the evidence against those picked up by the CIA. The same bureaucracy that decides to capture and transfer a suspect for interrogation-- a process called "rendition" -- is also responsible for policing itself for errors.

The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.

One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said.

"They picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague association" with terrorism, one CIA officer said.

While the CIA admitted to Germany's then-Interior Minister Otto Schily that it had made a mistake, it has labored to keep the specifics of Masri's case from becoming public. As a German prosecutor works to verify or debunk Masri's claims of kidnapping and torture, the part of the German government that was informed of his ordeal has remained publicly silent. Masri's attorneys say they intend to file a lawsuit in U.S. courts this week.

Masri was held for five months largely because the head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center's al Qaeda unit "believed he was someone else," one former CIA official said. "She didn't really know. She just had a hunch."

The CIA declined to comment for this article, as did Coats and a spokesman at the German Embassy in Washington. Schily did not respond to several requests for comment last week.

CIA officials stress that apprehensions and renditions are among the most sure-fire ways to take potential terrorists out of circulation quickly. In 2000, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet said that "renditions have shattered terrorist cells and networks, thwarted terrorist plans, and in some cases even prevented attacks from occurring."

(Continued at link: Page 2/ Page 3/ Page 4/ Page5)

[Booker Floyd]

And great news for those of you who voted for George W. Bush and the Republican Congress because theyd make our country safer:

Former 9/11 Commissioners: U.S. at Risk
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Dec 4, 6:28 PM ET
 

WASHINGTON - The U.S. is at great risk for more terrorist attacks because Congress and the White House have failed to enact several strong security measures, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said Sunday.
 
"It's not a priority for the government right now," said the former chairman, Thomas Kean, ahead of the group's release of a report Monday assessing how well its recommendations have been followed.

"More than four years after 9/11 ... people are not paying attention," the former Republican governor of New Jersey said. "God help us if we have another attack."

Added Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic vice chairman of the commission: "We believe that another attack will occur. It's not a question of if. We are not as well-prepared as we should be."

The five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission, whose recommendations are now promoted through a privately funded group known as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, conclude that the government deserves "more Fs than As" in responding to their 41 suggested changes.

Since the commission's final report in July 2004, the government has enacted the centerpiece proposal to create a national intelligence director. But the government has stalled on other ideas, including improving communication among emergency responders and shifting federal terrorism-fighting money so it goes to states based on risk level.

"There is a lack of a sense of urgency," Hamilton said. "There are so many competing priorities. We've got three wars going on: one in? ? ?Afghanistan, one in? ? ?Iraq and the war against terror. And it's awfully hard to keep people focused on something like this."

National security adviser? ? ?Stephen Hadley said Sunday that? ? ?President Bush is committed to putting in place most of the commission's recommendations.

"Obviously, as we've said all along, we are safer, but not yet safe. There is more to do," Hadley said on "Fox News Sunday."

Ex-commissioners contended the government has been remiss by failing to act more quickly.

Kean said the Transportation Security Administration was wrong to announce changes last week that will allow airline passengers to carry small scissors and some sharp tools. He also said the agency, by now, should have consolidated databases of passenger information into a single "terror watch list" to aid screening.

"I don't think we have to go backward here," said Kean, who appeared with Hamilton on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"They're talking about using more money for random checks. Terrorists coming through the airport may still not be spotted," Kean said.

Kean and Hamilton urged Congress to pass spending bills that would allow police and fire to communicate across radio spectrums and to reallocate money so that Washington and New York, which have more people and symbolic landmarks, could receive more for terrorism defense.

Both bills have stalled in Congress, in part over the level of spending and turf fights over which states should get the most dollars.

"This is a no-brainer," said Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman.

"From the standpoint of responding to a disaster, the key responders must be able to talk with one another. They could not do it on 9/11, and as a result of that, lives were lost. They could not do it at (Hurricane) Katrina. They still cannot do it."

As for the dollar dispute, Hamilton said, "We know what terrorists want to do: they want to kill as many Americans as possible. That means you protect the Washington monument and United States Capitol, and not other places."

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its 567-page final report, which became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former? ? ?President Clinton for missteps contributing to the attacks but did say they failed to make anti-terrorism a higher priority.

The commission also concluded that the Sept. 11 attack would not be the nation's last, noting that al-Qaida had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Calling the country "less safe than we were 18 months ago," former Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick said Sunday the government's failure to move forward on the recommendations makes the U.S. more vulnerable.

She cited the failure to ensure that foreign nations are upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, as well as the? ? ?FBI's resistance to overhauling its anti-terror programs.

"You remember the sense of urgency that we all felt in the summer of 2004. The interest has faded," the Washington lawyer said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "You could see that in the aftermath of Katrina. We assumed that our government would be able to do what it needed to do and it didn't do it."

[RichardNixon]

so i guess we shouldn't fight any type of terrorist behavior. maybe quitting and bowing down to al queda is the way to go.

hell, why even have cops. just forget about all the murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc. i mean afterall, someone else will continue to commit crimes anyway.

brilliant.?

Of course we need law enforcement and of course we need to stop terrorists from attacking the US again. That said, I stand by what I said: If the US killed Bin Laden, or any other top AQ leader, nothing would change. There is a system, and underground army in place, and regardless of whether Bin Laden is alive or dead, it will continue.

The US needs to:

1. Stop terrorists from planning another attack with spies and good intelligence.
2. Find and destroy terrorist training camps
3. Look into the root causes of terrorism. Try to ask ourselves why these people hate us so much and reexamine our policies.

[SLCPUNK]

Your lack on knowledge regarding this war and conflict in general is amazing.  Rambo was a movie, not real life.  And I'd love to hear how a war with nation building involved can be doner without casulaties.  Please enlighten us.  Also please give an example where we "just fuckin blow the shit into something and risk killing innocent people".  I'd say we take mor eprecaution than any other nation during any other conflict when it comes to collateral damage.  We go out of our way to minimize loss of innocent life.  If we didn't, we could end this insurgency in 2 seconds.

We have dropped bombs all over that place. Please show us how we take more precaution not to hurt civilians (Chenney saying it, does not count sorry).

No civilian loss is acceptable. That is why we are antiwar. A sociopath may call it "collateral damage" but guess what? Those people weren't asking for our help, they weren't begging to be "liberated". And in case you didn't know, the USA is not in business to fucking nation build. That is also not what Bush said before we went in. I can bet my last buck that if Bush said we were going in to nation build it would never have happened. He had to lie about WMD to scare the public into supporting the bogus war.

Those kids that have been killed in their beds are not collateral damage, they are children. What is more funny is that no matter what photo is shown you will waive them off and deny they are from Iraq. You are a delusional sociopath with no regard for the loss of human life.