[un]intelligence, that is.

GG USA, for more bungled intelligence and trigger-fingers, resulting in death of at least a dozen innocent civilians (incl. women and children) upon firing of a missile into a sovereign country!

He was not even fucking there, you imbecile "intelligence" community. And you destroyed 3 houses and killed innocents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10842035

Wait, is that how you are supposed to win hearts and minds, and bring democracy?

Why do they hate us? -- Bush

1/15/2006 11:20:14 AM

and i'm proud to be an american
where at least i once was free,
and i don't care about the folks we kill
cause it sure ain't you or me,
and i'll proudly stand up next to you
thank God i don't have to die,
cause there ain't no land as punk as us
who cares if brownies cry

1/15/2006 11:42:47 AM

OH NO


SOME TERRORISTS WERE KILLED


HOW HORRIBLE

1/15/2006 11:45:14 AM

and don't even say they were innocent. they are all terrorists up there.

1/15/2006 11:47:01 AM

hmmm maybe if they weren't sheltering the enemy they wouldn't be targeted.

this is a war.

1/15/2006 11:55:42 AM

^, ^^, ^^^

those are exactly the responses i expected, however, i though 30thAnn would be the first to say those things.

ha, no wonder the world hates americans, because americans think their lives are worth more than those of other humans, so they can kill innocent civilians in other countries, but others can't do the same to americans.

keep it up.

1/15/2006 12:58:56 PM

I think the people of most countries value "their people", whatever that means, over "other people". It's not necessarily a good thing, but that's the way it is.

1/15/2006 1:01:19 PM

^and that makes it OK?

Najeeb,

you are wasting time here. Thats why I left SB long time ago. Until they feel it on their own skin, they will be ignorant. As bad as it sounds, it is normal I guess. Nothing is going to change that.

[Edited on January 15, 2006 at 1:13 PM. Reason : ht]

1/15/2006 1:10:35 PM

ok... so they habitually shelter, feed, and hide terrorists. OH I BET THEY ARE JUST AS NICE AND FRIENDSLY AS MY BUDDY LARRY ACROSS THE STREET!!

no.


they are dirty, filthy, scum of the earth garbage that needs to be disposed of.

1/15/2006 1:18:05 PM

Try "GG CIA" instead of "GG USA".

No citizens voted the people behind the CIA into power, nobody outside of the CIA leadership and maybe a few politicians told them to carry out the mission, and nobody outside of congress can do much besides complain about it. (I.E. it's a big shady organization with a big budget, and they aren't on a short leash like the US military.)

Haha, you also don't know what their other motives were behind blowing up the house, and you won't know until about a decade after this era of the "war on terror" ends and they decide to let people talk about it! They might well have just blown up innocent civilians, or they might've blown up civilians who were actively seeking to fund, collaborate, and work with Al Qaeda.

As for now, I think it's retarded that they just refuse to give any comment on it. Even something hinting at a justification for the attack would be welcome. They need to reconsider their priorities if they're blowing up that many innocent civilians (in an area which is not at war with the USA) to kill some 11 pissant militants. I imagine that the CIA doesn't care though, they've been doing this sort of shady operational work for most of their existence, only now it looks like they are going to catch some real flak for it.

(P.S. I don't condone the killing of women and children. If their intelligence actually was wrong and no targets of interest were in those houses, then they need to take some serious action and make it so that this sort of bungle can never happen again. As far as attacks on a sovereign country go, this is simply the modern version of a CIA action. It's probably safer, faster, and cheaper for them to launch predator drones into the area than it is for them to send in agents, and it certainly seems like this is what they prefer to do nowadays when dealing with terrorists.)

1/15/2006 3:10:35 PM

Quote :

"^and that makes it OK? "

It DOESN'T make it okay. In fact, I specifically said that it wasn't.

1/15/2006 3:16:59 PM

Quote :

"It's not necessarily a good thing"

do you see the word necessarily?

1/15/2006 5:26:29 PM

if you kill americans, we will kill you back; and we don't give a fuck who dies on the way. If you surrender, fewer people will die; but we will get you.

1/15/2006 5:42:54 PM

Quote :

"and i'm proud to be an american where at least i once was free, and i don't care about the folks we kill cause it sure ain't you or me, and i'll proudly stand up next to you thank God i don't have to die, cause there ain't no land as punk as us who cares if brownies cry"

1/15/2006 11:09:21 PM

Quote :

"if you kill americans, we will kill you back; and we don't give a fuck who dies on the way. If you surrender, fewer people will die; but we will get you."

you fuckin 9?

1/16/2006 12:25:42 AM

Didn't you hear? We run this shit like the Chicago way.

1/16/2006 12:54:49 AM

plus, pakistan has wmd

1/16/2006 1:20:07 AM

there's a war going on?

sure doesn't feel like it.

1/16/2006 4:30:27 AM

This type of shit is totally unacceptable. Criminal charges should be pressed against whoever was responsible, and we should reparations to families of the victims.

1/16/2006 6:51:25 PM

But they weren't white.

1/16/2006 7:03:22 PM

its hard to give reperations to a family if we blew them up, eh?

1/16/2006 7:04:00 PM

boo fucking hoo. Read the subheadlines:

Although Zawahiri was not present, he was supposed to be and although we didn't get him, we may have gotten senior al qaeda officials.

I didn't hear fucking pakistan cry when 3000 pieces of "collateral damage" were killed on 9/11.

AND OMG THERE WERE WOMEN AND CHILDREN THERE TOO.

You stir the hornets nest, you get fucked up and innocent people get stung in the process. That's the way it goes. You shouldn't harbor those who killed our people if you value the lives of your 12 citizens that died.

1/16/2006 7:31:29 PM

i'd like to gut 0EP like a fish

and laugh

1/16/2006 9:43:39 PM

Why can't the rest of the world realize that 9/11 was the worst thing to happen in the history of the world?

1/16/2006 10:16:26 PM

Quote :

"I didn't hear fucking pakistan cry when 3000 pieces of "collateral damage" were killed on 9/11."

so i guess we don't care about being better than them anymore

i guess the military high ground is enough
why do we need the moral high ground anymore

1/16/2006 10:24:53 PM

Maybe someone has to say it:

If they were buddy-buddy with Zawahiri enough to invite him to their little party,

then maybe they deserved it.

1/16/2006 10:26:06 PM

Oh, and three other things:

1)

Quote :

"Thats why I left SB long time ago."

Anyone else laughing at the irony?

2) I bet a lot of people on here will suddenly forget the definition of "maybe"

3) Kids shouldn't get killed if it can be helped. Kids don't know what they're doing. But anyone who loves terrorists enough to have them over for dinner or knowingly lives with those people doesn't get a whole lot of my sympathy.

1/16/2006 10:40:31 PM

Quote :

"Kids shouldn't get killed if it can be helped."

If it can be helped? How hard is it to not fire a rocket at somebody's house?

1/16/2006 11:15:58 PM

It isn't. But let's say (as it currently appears) that some of the people in the house are friends of terrorists who should be killed. At what point is taking those people out acceptable if kids are involved?

Would you let one kid die to remove one friend of a terrorist? How about ten friends of terrorists? A hundred? A thousand?

Maybe for you that number is infinite, in which case I'd change "friends of terrorists" to just plain "terrorists."

Maybe you're just a total, never-kill-nobody pacifist, in which case we have a shit ton of things to argue about before we ever get to this point.

I don't know at the moment exactly who was killed. I don't know how many were kids. I don't know how many were involved in inviting Zawahiri, and I don't know how many knew he was invited. That's why I said "maybe." But I am certainly (if regretably) willing to kill some kids under certain circumstances, and until I know more, this may will be one of those circumstances.

1/16/2006 11:21:47 PM

^ YOu realize that the terrorist say the same thing about us? They don't care if they kill our kids (and other innocents) if it gets them what they want.

1/16/2006 11:34:43 PM

I do, in fact, realize that.

However, I believe that there is a difference between "what you want" and "what is right."

The United States did little to the Taliban, besides supporting it. And yet here they are, or rather, were a few years ago, aiding and sheltering people that wanted to kill us.

We weren't oppressing Afghanistan in 2001. We weren't oppressing Saudi Arabia. Ditto Iran, Syria, etc. Whatever we were doing to them negatively was, I think, negligible (possibly excluding ithe Palestinians and the Iraqis, but only possibly).

The terrorists from those countries, on the other hand, blew us up by the hundreds or thousands, depending on the incidence. Not to mention the rampant oppression they were imposing on their own people in many cases.

I have a hard time believing that the kind of person who would invite Zawahiri over for a holiday meal would be for the equal rights of nonmuslims, women, etc. I could be wrong; if that is the case, then so, more probably, was our action against them.

My point, more succinctly, is this: It doesn't matter what you argue for or against, but whether or not that argument is right. I tend to think that at least some of our more important arguments/causes in recent years have been right, not because they are our arguments, but simply because they are just. You can try to play a relativism card if you like, but you will be eaten alive upon doing so.

[Edited on January 16, 2006 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2006 11:50:58 PM

1/17/2006 12:30:13 AM

Quote :

"^ YOu realize that the terrorist say the same thing about us? They don't care if they kill our kids (and other innocents) if it gets them what they want."

So, when they lauched the terrorist attacks on 9/11, their overriding goal was to turn the US into their worst nightmare? Afganistan has been crushed, the terrorists no longer have a country, this was their goal?

Given that "their destruction" was the only plausible result of their actions on 9/11, I suspect their motives were none other than killing Americans. Their actions obviously didn't save the lives on any of their country men as it precipitated a war which they lost. Meanwhile, our actions more than likely have saved lives.

Quote :

" At least four foreign terrorists died in U.S. airstrike that was aimed at Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader"

1/17/2006 9:50:26 AM

Pakistan says 5 terrorists were killed in the strikes.

If you ask me, that shit is justified. Fuck the 5 terrorists and the other 6 or 7 folks that decided to have them over for dinner. Yeah, it sucks that kids die, it's not their fault and never does the sins of the father pass to the children... it's just their luck of the draw to be born to these evil people.

1/17/2006 10:38:40 AM

they're saying 10-12 terrorists now

1/17/2006 10:51:00 AM

and a few terrorists-to-be.

1/17/2006 10:53:33 AM

Yes. Venting your stupid opinion in "The Wolf Web", of all places, is going to completely change the American Intel. infastructure.

1/17/2006 11:06:11 AM

Analyze the situation via a hypothetical...

Quote :

"Imagine if Britain had reason to believe that one of the fugitive suspects in the subway bombings in the United Kingdom planned to secretly meet some relatives who would be at a crowded, public community Christian festival in Silver Spring Maryland. Britain then used one of their attack Nuclear Subs in the Atlantic to target the Christian Festival at the time they thought the suspect would be there. Imagine Britain then launched a missile with a powerful explosive warhead against a yearly Christian festival at the Silver Spring Maryland Community Center. Suppose that at least 18 Americans, including many women and children, died in the explosions and perhaps between 50 and 100 innocent Americans endured terrible injuries. How would Americans react? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/"

1/17/2006 11:16:26 AM

Except, I'm pretty sure we'd COOPERATE with the British and not harbor the terrorists that killed their citizens.

Wow. Talk about an apple/orange debate, I think you just compared an apple to a giraffe.

oh. and the j00z did it. I said it for you salisbury. You can leave the thread now.

1/17/2006 11:34:10 AM

Quote :

"But let's say (as it currently appears) that some of the people in the house are friends of terrorists who should be killed."

Then arrest them, don't use a rocket. Yes, I think the law enforcement approach is superior.

At the very least we should be using weapons that take out only one target, not fucking explosives.

Quote :

"But I am certainly (if regretably) willing to kill some kids under certain circumstances, and until I know more, this may will be one of those circumstances."

Have fun with that.

Accepting such a view for the moment, don't you think at a formal, public apology for killing the kids is appropriate?

1/17/2006 12:57:07 PM

i vote missiles over sending in people.

1/17/2006 1:01:15 PM

Had we sent people in and had casualties we would have the same people pissed off over the fact that American soldiers were put in harms way to do police work in Pakistan when we could have just fired a missile at the place.

1/17/2006 1:11:06 PM

^ Not me. I'm pretty sure I've never advocated sending a missile at much of anything.

1/17/2006 1:23:43 PM

Yep. Missles when we can. Boots if we have to. Missles always over boots. Fuck them. I'm more concerned about the American lives.

1/17/2006 1:39:01 PM

Quote :

"Except, I'm pretty sure we'd COOPERATE with the British and not harbor the terrorists that killed their citizens. "

Isn't Pakistan supposedly one of our "staunchest allies" in "Teh War on Terror"? Why couldn't we cooperate with one of our supposed allies?

1/17/2006 1:54:23 PM

do you have the first clue what you're talking about?

pakistan does not control the area where this took place. the tribal regions are places pakistani government officials and troops rarely tread.

1/17/2006 1:55:28 PM

Quote :

"pakistan does not control the area where this took place. the tribal regions are places pakistani government officials and troops rarely tread."

I wasn't aware that this was an established fact.

1/17/2006 2:00:07 PM

it is.

1/17/2006 2:30:59 PM

It is... the pakistan-afghan border is like the old wild west, there's essentially no law.

That's why I really don't care if we mow over the motherfuckers.

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2006 4:55:04 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't aware that this was an established fact."

Well, it is.

I was talking to a professor of mine a few days ago. He's spent time in Pakistan and Afghanistan (where he helped set up the new judicial system), and he concurs with literally all of the other accepted information out there, even that put out by the Pakistani government, that the Tribal Areas of Pakistan are barely under any central government control at all. For all the military might Pakistan has, it cannot project much (if any) power into those regions while simultaneously guarding its borders, etc. And that's just because of the population, and says nothing of the large border over impassable terrain.

Quote :

"At the very least we should be using weapons that take out only one target, not fucking explosives."

What exactly are you recommending here?

Quote :

"Then arrest them, don't use a rocket."

Not that the rocket approach has been spectacularly successful either, but sending people into a multi-structure compound hasn't succeded very often, if at all. In general I get the impression that it warns the bad guys and gives them a chance to get away.

Quote :

"Have fun with that. "

I won't, and don't you ever accuse me for a fucking second of being pleased with the death of children.

Quote :

"don't you think at a formal, public apology for killing the kids is appropriate?"

An apology to the effect of, "We sinerely apologize for the death of any innocents in this and other actions. Such an outcome is something we always actively strive to avoid. We regret in the extreme that at times it is unavoidable." That is appropriate. At the same time, though, I will be severly disappointed, rather than outraged, if such an apology is not forthcoming.

1/18/2006 2:07:44 AM