The guy who masterminded the east Africa embassy bombings was killed in Somalia. Though it would have been better to capture and grill him. Probably Anonymous Moron in my comments section is in mourning.

Hey, it's no worse than the perverse fantasies he harbors about me...

[Update]

And here's some news about some more good terrorists in Afghanistan:

Bungling Taliban fanatics have blown themselves to pieces trying to set a booby-trap near a British base in the Afghan desert.

Little was left of the three-man terror cell after the huge blast near Camp Price. Marines from J Company, 4 2 Commando, are among 250 British troops at the base.

Commanding officer Major Ewen Murchison, from Bearsden, Glasgow, said: "It was what we would describe as an own-goal."

May they continue to bungle.

Though it would have been better to capture and grill him.

Literally.

The nicest thing about capturing and grilling him (first metaphorically, then with high voltage) would have been the relative lack of collateral damage. Foot soldiers with guns sometimes make mistakes, but they're at least more discriminating than pilots with cannons.

I'd rather get to read "convicted bomber executed" in the papers. As it is, Americans get to read "suspected bomber killed" and lose one more sliver of respect for due process; the rest of the world gets to read "civilians, including children, were killed" and loses another sliver of respect for America.

I hear what you're saying about the rest of the world reading of dead children etc., but you lost me on "due process". Since when are enemy soldiers owed due process in war? If you capture the enemy that's fine, maybe you get some intel from them but it has nothing to do with "due process". In war you kill the enemy, simple as that.

We'd all like that, Roy S, but the U.S. isn't going to be respected if we run around obsequeously seeking respect. I think you're probably confusing "respect" for 'love', and the world will never love us.

In any case, it's best to be feared, in our current situation. If the lesser nations of the world would make the effort to curb their Mohammadan terrorists, we wouldn't have to go to such lengths to do the job ourselves. In the case of non-states such as Somalia, the United States is not obligated to do nothing while any given territory is used for the purpose of making war upon the United States. In fact, that last statement is true of real, viable states which have a government.

The moral burden of non-combatant casualties lies upon the forces which shelter amongst civilians, or deliberately force civilians to remain near them, when considering where blame lies for non-combatant deaths.

Due process occurs prior to declaration of war. Convictions can only occur once the suspect has surrendered to authorities.

Blah, Blah, Blah, High Ranking AQ official killed, Blah, Blah, Blah.

How many #2 guys in Iraq have been killed?

I'd be more impressed if they got Bin Laden, otherwise,
it's just noise.

Anonymoron took 6 comments to stick his oar in? Amazing.

Anyway, back to subject -

If you harbour one of the participants in a war, expect to get shot/blown up by the other one. Tough cheddar.

How many #2 guys in Iraq have been killed?

I keep having this image of the "#1 guy in Iraq" having to choose his four-year-old granddaughter for his #2 because there's literally no one else left who wants the job.

Blah, Blah, Blah.

It looks like the target wasn't killed after all.

Turns out that we didn't kill the guy. Does this mean that our attack was not successful?

Turns out that we didn't kill the guy. Does this mean that our attack was not successful?

Well, if true, it means it wasn't successful at killing him. I can't make any broader statements about whether it was successful or not, not knowing the goals, or who was killed. But any attack that kills the enemy is a successful one. Even if it wasn't successful, what's your point?

Simbergsays:

"But any attack that kills the enemy is a successful one. Even if it wasn't successful, what's your point?"

Obviously Simberg has not read the Army Counterinsurgency manual.

I'm very cynical about any announced killing of the #2 or
#3 in Al qaeda or the insurgency etc, because the
DoD has announced killing about 17 of them.

Heck, they crowed over killing zarqawi, why didn't that do
anything to help, in fact, US forces casualties increased
after the zarqawi killing.

it says something that simberg beats the drum on all
this propoganda.

anonymous, which side do you think ought to win the war?

Mike

What side do you think is losing right now?

It's a simple question, but shame on me for not being more specific. Civilisation, the developed world, Christendom, the West, however you like it, is at war with those non-governmental organisations or Muslim nation-states which allow or encourage the making of war upon non-combatants who do not follow Islam, and those nation-states which actively engage in warfare against civilised nation-states, using either legitimate regular forces, or terrorists.

Or, if you find Mohammedan definitions to be more useful, the so-named 'Dar al-harb' (the House of War, or House of chaos--us, in other words) is in armed conflict with the 'Dar al-islam' (the House of Islam, or House of peace, territories which fall under the sway of Mohammedanism, if I remember correctly).

So, which side do you favor? The West? Islamism, or its' sponsors? Dar al-Harb, or Dar al-Islam?

Sorry for the vagueness of my question, and I hope this defining of terms aids the conversation.

Mike
Look

I'm an american, I believe in the american way.
I don't believe in Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the wehabs.

I didn't believe in funding the Taliban and the ISI back
in the 80's, I didn't believe in funding the islamists
to fight the russians. I didn't believe in supporting the chechens.

Making comments about the lack of wisdom in this, just
got me called a commie by the reaganites.

However, I do not believe in the drunken folly of
george bush and the unamerican agenda of the neo-cons.

I do not believe the west will prevail by bombing
weddings in Iraq and villages in afghanistan.

Asking me to support George's war is like asking me
to support a drunk driver in a snow storm. Sure,
I don't want to be in the storm, Sure, I want to get
to the destination, but, with the snow falling, i can't
tell you where the goal is, and that drunk idiot
won't get me there.

Sorry, i'd rather be at home, i'd rather be pulled over,
and if we are going to keep moving, i don't want the
drunk driving.