All Hank, all the time.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Oooh, was that a burn? Nice burn!

Well, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the Geneva Conventions do not ban assassination (i.e. targeted killing of specific individuals).

Moreover, if you believe that Mr. Zarqawi was the leader of an opposing military force subject to the protection of the appropriate Geneva Conventions, you have a damn hard time saying it was wrong to target him for killing. In a war, or pseudo-war, each side frequently targets the other side's generals.

As I understand it, we killed Zarqawi and 6-7 aides, and Hank mentioned two innocent noncombatants. The last two deaths are very bad--but you put that sort of risk in the balance all the time. And, to make a facile justification, it is Zarqawi's fault for hiding with them.

I can only presume you think we should have tried to swoop in with a couple hundred troops to try to arrest him. Bull. First, fraught with peril and risk of compromise and risk of failure. Second, those soldiers are undfer no more obligation to risk their lives to try to capture Zarqawi alive than a police officer is to hold his fire because the man threatening his life only has a knife, and thecop he is wearing a mesh vest, and he and his partner could maybe wrestle him down.

It was a quick and easy death for Zarqawil he was almost certainly killed instntly by the concussion. They bombed him from so high up he may never have even heard the planes. Perfectly lawful. The right thing to do. Better than he deserved.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, telling reporters that the government is using warrantless wiretapping on phone calls is a gross breach of state secrets, but telling reporters that we have an informant in the "inner circle" of Zarqawi's group is a-ok.

Fair point, but I can see why the government would theoretically be Ok with releasing this information:

(a) it seems reasonably obvious -- only a very limited number of people know where he would be;

(b) The dude in question is getting his $25 million reward, and so won't be operating in al Qaeda in Iraq any longer; and

(c) helps fuel suspicion -- all reamining senior folks suspect or queston all the others.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Fair point, but I can see why the government would theoretically be Ok with releasing this information:

(a) it seems reasonably obvious -- only a very limited number of people know where he would be;

(b) The dude in question is getting his $25 million reward, and so won't be operating in al Qaeda in Iraq any longer; and

(c) helps fuel suspicion -- all reamining senior folks suspect or queston all the others.

S_A_M

What I don't get is that they say that they got a whole cache of crtical information after Killing Zarakawi. I must be missing something here, because in the film clip of them killing Zarakawi that I saw, his entire building and almost half the block were blow to all hell.

It looked as though a tooth wouldn't survive that blast, yet his body is intact and they found a whole lot of paper. Isn't paper highly combustible?

Something does not add up, or did I miss something?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It was a quick and easy death for Zarqawil he was almost certainly killed instntly by the concussion.

Or not. Whatever.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What I don't get is that they say that they got a whole cache of crtical information after Killing Zarakawi. I must be missing something here, because in the film clip of them killing Zarakawi that I saw, his entire building and almost half the block were blow to all hell.

It looked as though a tooth wouldn't survive that blast, yet his body is intact and they found a whole lot of paper. Isn't paper highly combustible?

Something does not add up, or did I miss something?

More psy-ops?

[c2ed]

Originally posted by Spanky
What I don't get is that they say that they got a whole cache of crtical information after Killing Zarakawi. I must be missing something here, because in the film clip of them killing Zarakawi that I saw, his entire building and almost half the block were blow to all hell.

It looked as though a tooth wouldn't survive that blast, yet his body is intact and they found a whole lot of paper. Isn't paper highly combustible?

Something does not add up, or did I miss something?

My understanding from half-reading several news stories is that the other information came from raids conducted on about 30-40 other 'sort of safe houses,' where they found lots of alleged insurgents, their plans, computers and papers. These raids were done within an hour or two after bombing Zarqawi's safe house (apparently these raids were easier without the leader in communication with everyone).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Wank McBumsky
Thats' interesting take on eternal jsutice. The liberals seem very openminded when it comes to protecting killlers, sex predators and terorists,

Perhaps you didn't read the part where I expressed my hopes for Zarqawi's eternal future. I'm protecting him?

but not soi much for Americans with dfifferent viewpoitns.

Nope, just for those who suggest that I'm a terrorist sympathizer because I think the Iraq war is bad strategy.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Perhaps you didn't read the part where I expressed my hopes for Zarqawi's eternal future. I'm protecting him?




Nope, just for those who suggest that I'm a terrorist sympathizer because I think the Iraq war is bad strategy.

If you ignore the trolls, they go away faster.

[welltrained-pupil-wannabe]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you ignore the trolls, they go away faster.

For a newbie cum student of the board, are non-substantive semi-lame flames a good way to go, or is it better to show one's worth to the board with on-topical posts?

just trying to get my sea-legs here,

w-p-w

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by welltrained-pupil-wannabe
For a newbie cum student of the board, are non-substantive semi-lame flames a good way to go, or is it better to show one's worth to the board with on-topical posts?

Well, the first one didn't work for you, so try the second . . .

I, personally, always ask myself "What Would Hank Do?"

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by welltrained-pupil-wannabe
For a newbie cum student of the board, are non-substantive semi-lame flames a good way to go, or is it better to show one's worth to the board with on-topical posts?

just trying to get my sea-legs here,

w-p-w

Clearly a hank sock.

[welltrained-pupil-wannabe]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well, the first one didn't work for you, so try the second . . .

I, personally, always ask myself "What Would Hank Do?"

S_A_M

Touche.

Anyone else see that Senator Heinz-Kerrywill introduce legislation this week to pull the majority of troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006. (see story: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...2-123823-4136r)

While it is certainly reasonable policy to talk about an overall plan and defining touchpoints as to when x% of troops can be drawn, but isn't it a bit reckless for Kerry and Murtha and their pals to be setting arbitrary deadlines? Seems like a losing strategy all around, although maybe Kerry is more proficient with losing strategies than naught. Maybe he should just convene a conference in Paris and start negotiating the US surrender on whatever terms the mullahs in Iran want.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by welltrained-pupil-wannabe
Touche.

Anyone else see that Senator Heinz-Kerrywill introduce legislation this week to pull the majority of troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006. (see story: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...2-123823-4136r)

While it is certainly reasonable policy to talk about an overall plan and defining touchpoints as to when x% of troops can be drawn, but isn't it a bit reckless for Kerry and Murtha and their pals to be setting arbitrary deadlines?

I think that firm deadlines and pre-arranged percentage troop reductions are mistaken policy.

We don't want to give the enemy hope that, if they "just hang in there" to X date, it will get easier for them.

This won't pass, though I'd be a bit more worried after the election if the Dems take back the House.

S_A_M

[Wank McBumsky]

Originally posted by welltrained-pupil-wannabe
Touche.

Anyone else see that Senator Heinz-Kerrywill introduce legislation this week to pull the majority of troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006. (see story: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...2-123823-4136r)

While it is certainly reasonable policy to talk about an overall plan and defining touchpoints as to when x% of troops can be drawn, but isn't it a bit reckless for Kerry and Murtha and their pals to be setting arbitrary deadlines? Seems like a losing strategy all around, although maybe Kerry is more proficient with losing strategies than naught. Maybe he should just convene a conference in Paris and start negotiating the US surrender on whatever terms the mullahs in Iran want.

Often, after smart dinner parties, Picasso is said to have wheeled out Guernica for his guests to enjoy.

Onn one particular occassion, in 1945, in an interestng coupling as Picasso was wont to orchestrate, both David Llyod George and Sir Winnie Churchill were in attendancec at the Picasso home. Chucrchill had just been defeated by Atleee in the first post—war election in Britian adn was fluctuating between being blind drunk and rampaginly angry. At one Goerge and Picasso ended up adjacent to each other and were beseiged by Françoise Gilot to pose for a photto. As he was moving into place for one of the photos, Churchill drunbkenly slipped and fell onto George, who quipped,

"Get the hell off of me you political has-been"

George’s attendant reseated the doddering old leftist, and mumbled an apology to Churchill, at which point Churchill exclaimed,

"Let Atlee try a best two out of three'"

and then he promptly puked on Gilot's Chanel outfit

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by welltrained-pupil-wannabe
Touche.

Anyone else see that Senator Heinz-Kerrywill introduce legislation this week to pull the majority of troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006. (see story: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...2-123823-4136r)

While it is certainly reasonable policy to talk about an overall plan and defining touchpoints as to when x% of troops can be drawn, but isn't it a bit reckless for Kerry and Murtha and their pals to be setting arbitrary deadlines? Seems like a losing strategy all around, although maybe Kerry is more proficient with losing strategies than naught. Maybe he should just convene a conference in Paris and start negotiating the US surrender on whatever terms the mullahs in Iran want.

Who cares? Kerry carries the stink of failure about him like Pigpen carrying that dust cloud. You should be heartened; the bill's destined to fail, as everything else that dim, slow-witted fool offers. The man can't complete a fucking coherent thought without 15 asides. I have a terminal case of ADD and I find his inability to stay on point appalling. You know DC is festering sewage hole of talentless hacks when a person unable to feign anything remotely resembling charisma can grab a nomination. John Kerry couldn't hold a crowd's interest for more than a minute if he danced naked juggling lit sticks of dynamite.

Well, maybe then...