As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
It's possible that what they thought was a child turned out to be a young woman.
Asherman wrote:As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
That a bit of a slippery slope...
How many innocent casualties are you willing to inflict (or have inflicted)?
It only a short way down that road before you get to, "kill 'em all; God will recognize his own."
Asherman wrote:As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
This post implies an idiotic assumption that objecting to the use of 500 lb. bombs means that those who so object would rather that nothing had been done. Personally, i specifically objected to the operational method, not the operation. This ought to be beneath you--i'm saddened to see that it is not.
Asherman wrote:As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
In the Mexican Mafia (which I am not defending) if a gang goes to shoot a rival gang member in a drive by and an innocent person gets killed all gang members involved in that shooting are either killed on the street or in prison. It's a code that if you have an enemy you confront him face to face. Others that are not involved are just that, not involved.
Setanta wrote:Asherman wrote:As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
This post implies an idiotic assumption that objecting to the use of 500 lb. bombs means that those who so object would rather that nothing had been done. Personally, i specifically objected to the operational method, not the operation. This ought to be beneath you--i'm saddened to see that it is not.
It may be that you are the only one making that idiotic assumption.
Amigo wrote:Asherman wrote:As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
In the Mexican Mafia (which I am not defending) if a gang goes to shoot a rival gang member in a drive by and an innocent person gets killed all gang members involved in that shooting are either killed on the street or in prison. It's a code that if you have an enemy you confront him face to face. Others that are not involved are just that, not involved.
Not defending ... just admiring?
No, that is not a warranted assumption at all. Asherman wrote, in part: . . . that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. That clearly assumes that those objecting objected to the operation itself, rather than the method. I don't object to taking out a scumbag like that, i object to doing so with 500 lb. bombs. If we knew where the safe house was, we have troops, such as Delta Force, which specialize in such operations. The bombing was not necessary to accomplish the purpose.
Grow up, Tico, stop trying to play Perry Mason.
Amigo wrote:In the Mexican Mafia (which I am not defending) if a gang goes to shoot a rival gang member in a drive by and an innocent person gets killed all gang members involved in that shooting are either killed on the street or in prison. It's a code that if you have an enemy you confront him face to face. Others that are not involved are just that, not involved.
It is always good to have standards of conduct to which one might aspire.
Asherman wrote:As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
It's day two and I'm still elated he's gone (hoping he and Arafat are burning in hell
together and all their 'virgins' resemble Helen Thomas)
I also approve of the operation, the way it was carried out and I'm hoping it's the start of a new trend.
Celebration time, c'mon
.......That song is stuck in my head
This, for me, is one of those "I don't have a good answer" issues.
Had it been Bin Laden, would the reticent among us have chosen to drop the bomb, I wonder?
Zarqawi was a powerful force behind the murders (I believe) of innocent Iraqis, who have tried to make the new government work. He may have been as pivotal in the mayhem in Iraq on a small scale as Bin Laden is on the global scale. A few people have wondered aloud why we couldn't choose to send in teams instead of drop bombs, but the safety of our men and women becomes a serious consideration...
I'm not tutting at the members, who thought the hit was worth the casualties, or those who were against it. Just thinking and feeling out loud.
I'm appreciative for the ability to do so. Sincerely.
I would have had to change my mind. There can be no flop without the previously established flip.
Poopityhead.
Ticomaya wrote:Amigo wrote:Asherman wrote:As you may suppose, I have no problems with the method used to kill a man who very much needed killing. Identify the target, and take it out. If there were innocent casualties, that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. Our forces do not intentionally target innocent civilians, but in the sort of war this bunch has chosen to fight, such casualties are to be expected. Hiding behind a woman's skirts is about as daring as these yahoos get.
Good riddance.
In the Mexican Mafia (which I am not defending) if a gang goes to shoot a rival gang member in a drive by and an innocent person gets killed all gang members involved in that shooting are either killed on the street or in prison. It's a code that if you have an enemy you confront him face to face. Others that are not involved are just that, not involved.
Not defending ... just admiring?
Comparing.
I grew up surrounded by Mexican gangs that me and my friends and family managed to resist. My early up close and personal exposure to violence and brutality lead me to the conviction of committing a small part of my life defeating it through knowledge, understanding and action.
I am far beyond you to the to the point that I (almost) fully understand the nature of your and Ashermans comments. They are more constructively understood then replied to. You both have discredited yourself.
Setanta wrote:No, that is not a warranted assumption at all. Asherman wrote, in part: . . . that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. That clearly assumes that those objecting objected to the operation itself, rather than the method. I don't object to taking out a scumbag like that, i object to doing so with 500 lb. bombs. If we knew where the safe house was, we have troops, such as Delta Force, which specialize in such operations. The bombing was not necessary to accomplish the purpose.
Asherman gave you no valid basis to leap to the conclusion that because you objected to the use of bombs, he believed you would have preferred nothing be done. All he did was state his view that taking out innocents, while lamentable, should not bar the operation.
Quote:Grow up, Tico, stop trying to play Perry Mason.
Huh? Perry Mason was a fictitious attorney in literature, TV, and movies. You think I'm trying to play a fictitious attorney?
Amigo wrote: I am far beyond you to the to the point that I (almost) fully understand the nature of your and Ashermans comments. They are more constructively understood then replied to. You both have discredited yourself.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion about the matter.
Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:No, that is not a warranted assumption at all. Asherman wrote, in part: . . . that's too bad but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on living. That clearly assumes that those objecting objected to the operation itself, rather than the method. I don't object to taking out a scumbag like that, i object to doing so with 500 lb. bombs. If we knew where the safe house was, we have troops, such as Delta Force, which specialize in such operations. The bombing was not necessary to accomplish the purpose.
Asherman gave you no valid basis to leap to the conclusion that because you objected to the use of bombs, he believed you would have preferred nothing be done. All he did was state his view that taking out innocents, while lamentable, should not bar the operation.
In stating it was too bad, but not a reason to let scum like Zarquai go on linving, he inferentially assumes that an objection to the method is an objection to the goal--it is not.
Quote:Quote:Grow up, Tico, stop trying to play Perry Mason.
Huh? Perry Mason was a fictitious attorney in literature, TV, and movies. You think I'm trying to play a fictitious attorney?
No, you just emulate his melodramatic technique.
Lash wrote:I would have had to change my mind. There can be no flop without the previously established flip.
Poopityhead.
Kiss my grits with lips saturated with sweet tea (my lady)
