The U.S. captured another "#2" al-Qaida leader. This is about the 15th #2 leader they've captured. :rolleyes:

No. 2 al-Qaida Leader in Iraq Arrested

Well, whenever they catch a # 2 leader...there's always # 3,4,5 waiting to move up in the ranks.

Gosh...would you rather they didn't capture any of these guys and just look for Bin Laden?

:rolleyes:

Glad you're not running the war on terror.

See you at Chan's,
AppleOnYa

#2, #4, #100, whatever. Hey, that's one less terrorist fuck left in the world.

Too bad the headline didn't read "#2 Al Qaeda Leader In Iraq KILLED!"


At least their catching these scumbags.


Don Cardi

Hey, that's 'alleged' terrorist fuck.

After all, until a fair trial can be conducted how do we know for sure....

Apple

This is not just a number two. It is the Iraqi number two. The regular number two is still Al-Zawahari.

As Apple has pointed out, basic math principles really do help.

Either way, getting Zarqawi earlier was still the best news of the year (terrorist-related anyways) to this point.

Then again, its like WW2 when its one thing to capture fugitive Nazi commanders...its another to actually capture armies, or at least forcing them to surrender, thus removing them from the strategic field of play.

I mean, the news is nice and all, but how about Iraqi units that can actually hold cities insurgent-free without the Americans having to hold their hand and having to go back and save their asses?

You ready to travel over there to help with the training?

Good news of course, but I would really love to see the number one Abou al-Masri to be captured. Wouldn't give the same boost like the killing of Al-Zarqawi did, but still.
You ready to travel over there to help with the training? [/b][/quote]You can say that about everyone here. If we are allowed to comment only if we were actually there... I mean, the people taking the decisions are also just sitting on their ass, no?

You ready to travel over there to help with the training? [/b][/quote]Wow, are you the liberal and I'm the conservative here?

Come on, get a better line of argument.

Besides, if America's best in the military can't train them to be a competent army, then they aren't worth it. They might as well join the AVRN or the Batista-Cuban forces, or the Mussolini Italian forces...that is, in inept sidekick/proxy forces that can't fight worth a damn without their big "friend".

To quote Pink Floyd.....


"Is anybody OUT there?"

Honestly, and I'm not being sarcastic, negative, or just trying to stir the pot, but I'm just wondering if anyone is enjoying the History Channel's "Revolution" series a much as I am? One thing I notice about this series, though, is the similarities between the American colonial army and these Muslim terrorists. Granted, our cause for independenct fom taxation without representation seems far nobler than Al Qaida's beliefs, you have to see it from a neutral point of view. These fanatical, religious people believe that their cause is just a noble. The British viewed the American style of war, hiding behind trees and taking cover in battle rather than marching in an open field, as a form of terrorism, just as we view attacking innocent civilians as a modern form of terrorism, and rightly so. The only thing that concerns me is how do we learn from history. My old high school history teacher had a cliched saying about how if you don't learn from the past, you're bound to repeat it. The British were a global power in those days, but the Americans changed the way in which war was fought. At first, it was met with criticism and scorn due it's cowardice, but eventually people realized its ingenuity due to the amount of lives it saved. Nearly 250 years later, America is a superpower who has been humbled by a new style of attack that is viewed in the same manner as the American colonists were viewed by the British. It seems silly to compare the two, but think about how each group viewed themselves. Regardless of how you view modern day terrorists, and I doubt that there are many here who view them as heroes, but they view themselves in this manner. I would guess that many British viewed Washington, Franklin, Arnold, etc. as psychopaths who were complete fucks, just as we view current terrorists. How do we learn from their mistakes? The thing that doomed the British was the fact they continued to fight a convential war of the times against forces that obviously had no intention of fighting back in this manner.

Again, I'm not typing this to be a smart ass of prove some point about how my political party is somehow superior to any other. I'm one of those rare Americans who actually thinks for himself and doesn't just follow what my political leaders have told me to think. There is absolutely no sarcasm intended in this post, so if anyone reads any into it, please don't interpret it as such. I have very little experience in dealing with such manners, so this is just my reaction to the current war in the Middle East. I'm guessing there are members of this board who possess more knowledge than I on the subject, so I am welcoming opinions as to why I am wrong to draw this comparison between the two wars.

Jimmy, in all that you wrote, and I sincerely see the point that you were trying to bring out, the line that I quoted above sums it all up.

I've been saying this both here on the boards and off the boards in general conversations about this war on terror. Until the powers that be involved in the decision making, some of the representatives in the political parties and most of all the civil rights advocates realize that we are NOT fighting a conventional war here, it's going to be a long uphill battle ( no pun intended) for the troops who are fighting terrorism and the terrorists.

Your point is well taken and it is quite obvious by what you posted that you were not trying to put these terrorists in the same category as the revolutionists and the minutemen who fought for independance. You obviously are trying to point out that you are afraid that the USA and the coalition nations that are fighting this war on terror may be making the same mistake that the British made during that war.


You make a very good point.


Don Cardi

Except the revolutionary generation in America weren't a.) blowing themselves up b.) blowing up women and children c.) intentionally attacking civilians d.) fighting for radicalized religion to be forcibly spread across the planet.

But other than that, sure, they're practically identical. :rolleyes:

I've never been wild when people what to make a direct comparison between the current situation in Iraq and the American Revolution. Save for the concept that its a foreign imperial power fighting a domestic guerilla army, they're pretty damn different.

If anything, its like trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam as well. Yes, America is bogged down in a foreign, hostile country against an insurgent domestic force that used guerilla war. But unlike Vietnam, our opposition itself is fighting each other while shooting and blowing us up.

Nor was the NVA's actions fueled by religious extremism, or ancient sectarian bitchings and pissyness that's been brewing for centuries.

Except Don CArdi, you're wrong. You try to make it sound like that this is an unconventional war that we've never fought before. Let me guess, we're in World War III now, right?

Fact is, Americans have had to deal with terrorism within our borders before, from the fears of Nazi German and later Communist saboteurs/double agents. Then there was the Weathermen, and their fetish for blowing shit up. Fuck, nevermind those SLA crazy people in California.

Of course, those threats weren't as massive in possible scale or from an organized international terror network, but fact is, America has battled terrorism before...KICKED ass.

Speaking of which Buffer, the U.S. was engaged in a guerilla war in a hostile foreign country that is occupied, the Philippine-American War, which the Americans won. Why did we fight? So we could keep the Philippines as an American colony for another 40 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

The good old days...

Well both of you missed the whole point that Jimmy Buffer was trying to make.

I'm the last one that would ever categorize a terrorist as being a freedom fighter or a minuteman. I'll leave that to the Cindy Sheehans and the Al Flankins of the world. There is absolutely no comparison.

But what you both failed to see in Buffers post was that he was NOT trying to categorize terrorists and minutemen as the same kinds of people. He was merely trying to point out that during the revelutionary war the British insisted on fighting a conventional war, the only one that they knew how to fight, and refused to make the adjustments needed to fight the war to win it. That's all Buffer was trying to point out. I don't believe that he was saying that Minutemen and Freedom fighters during the revolutionary war were the same as the terrorists today.

Now Ronnie, you are the perfect example of what Buffer is trying to point out and what I have advocated for some time now. People such as yourself think that we can fight this war the same way that we fought WWI, WWII, Korea, etc. And that, IMO, is a huge mistake. We are not fighting a nation's army, we are fighting cockaroaches that do not and will not fight wars in the 'conventional' way that everyone else around the world is used to fighting. These scumbags do not play by the 'rules' of war that warring factions have played with throughout history. These terrroists do not know of any rules. So therefore in order to smoke them out, we need to throw all rules of war out the window when fighting them and do whatever it takes to wipe them out. And if that means taking them to international waters to interrogate them for more information, if that means taking them to international waters to make them stand trial, if it means eavesdropping in on their communications, and if that means beating the piss out of them to help us win this war, then that's what has to be done.

But until the civil rights crybabies understand that these people that we are fighting do not and will never deserve the civil rights that our soldiers have died and keep dying for, the enemy will use these civil rights groups to help them in their own cause. Which I might remind you is to blow your ass up into a million pieces or terrorize you into converting to extreme islamic beliefs.

When are you and your cronies going to get it? When?

Your the typical double talker that is never satisfied, and screams out of both sides of the mouth.

"Why didn't the governement do everything to protect me?" and then when the government does try to take steps to protect IT's OWN people, your screaming from the otherside of your mouth " Why is the government treating our enemies that way? It's unconstitutional?"

The enemy does not have ANY constitutional rights! The enemy doesn't give two fucks about your rights. The enemy couldn't give a damn about our childrens rights! The enmey does not know what Geneva convention laws and rights are, and if they do they couldn't give two fucks about applying them to this war. And until you and your lib crying buddies understand this, you'll never understand what the meaning of fighting an unconventional war really is.

Oh, and by the way, if you cannot see that this world is on the cusp of a potential WWIII, then I ask you to please, give me some of that shit that you are taking, which seems to take you to this fantasy world. I'd love to go there too!


Don Cardi

NOW GO UP TO YOUR ROOM AND DON"T COME OUT UNTIL YOU GET IT RIGHT!

Oh jeez, where to start.

"He was merely trying to point out that during the revelutionary war the British insisted on fighting a conventional war, the only one that they knew how to fight, and refused to make the adjustments needed to fight the war to win it. "

For a condensed and simplified answer to why the Limeys lost the American Revolution, that works....BUT, you and Buffer forgot the other major reason why the British friggin lost the war.

People do forget that at best, only 1/3 of the American colonial population supported the Revolution, another 1/3 were fiercely Loyalists, and the rest were neutral, hoping to not get involved in this conflict.

Thing was, the British did some stupid shit that blew up in their face. Obviously their mistreatment of farmers and people in the wilderness parts of the colonies pissed off those Scot-Irish populations enough to turn many to the Revolutionaries' side. Note, Battle of King's Mountain.

Hell, DJ can go more indepth about that story.

"Now Ronnie, you are the perfect example of what Buffer is trying to point out and what I have advocated for some time now. People such as yourself think that we can fight this war the same way that we fought WWI, WWII, Korea, etc."

Myself? WHEN THE FUCK did I say that I advocated fighting like those other wars? Really DC, your assumption instincts need fucking lubrication.

Besides, you missed that whole point I was making with that Phillipine war that the American military had to deal with? You know, we Americans having to fight a war against guerilla militants of a foreign land? Hello? To quote Pink Floyd, "Is anybody OUT THERE?"

"When are you and your cronies going to get it? When?"

Other than that, your post really seems like your excuse to go off into a rant. If you want me as your wetnurse, fine. But I could care less about your personal emotions.

Besides, why even bother having like due process and law anyway? Why did the Founding Fathers, and the British system beforehand, even bother with it? Those fuckers!

Exactly what I meant. Well said, DC. I don't mean that the American soldiers during the Revolution were as harsh or inhuman as the current terrorists today. Of course these terrorists are much more destructive toward mankind. Like DC explained, my comparison was more toward how the British dealt unsuccessfully with the colonists and how we are dealing with the terrorists.

But it is important to note that the proper way to fight these terrorists is an option not easily reached; the Israelis virtually destroyed the PLO in Lebanon in the 80's with door-to-door campaigns; Israelis are hated for their tacts. The French in Algiers decimated the FLN, but the French public turned on them and they eventually left.

Were we to use effective military strategy against the terrorists, rather than conventional bombings and raids, there would be an even greater uproar from both the domestic and European left than there is already.

What's this???? Isnt he about the forty fifth "Number 2" guy they have captured or killed??

Your a few days late with that one DonT, several have already beat you to it. That joke is now and old one.

And speaking of jokes, why do you find this so amusing. You think that it was so amusing for the troops who had to risk their lives capturing this pig? And please, don't bother with the "lighten up" reply.

With people like you the troops are dmaned if they do and damned if they don't. I just don't know what you want from those fighting in this war.

Way to add to the discussion!




Don Cardi

Damn DC, why don't you respond to my post as well?

Since when is there a conventional way of killing people? Oh those dirty terrorists, they won't form a battle line and move divisions around and launch counter attacks along 3 mile fronts...

Please, does anyone expect a weaker force to fight a "regular" war?

Exactly the point being made here.

WE need to realize that the terrorists are not going to fight a conventional war so therefore it is my opinion that we must make the neccesary adjustments and get that historical style conventional war mentality out of OUR minds. This war is going to be very tough to win if we continue to adhere to that conventional war styled strategy.


Don Cardi

Again, there's no such thing as conventional killing; killing is killing

And again, we're not talking about conventional killing. We're talking about coventional war strategies!


Don Cardi

Are you actually refering to Islamic Terrorists who would hijack passenger airliners and crash them into buildings and behead civilians as a 'weaker force'??

Mad Johnny, you're embarrassing yourself again.

Apple