War against terror

[EiZei 0]

Happy international human rights day by the way.

[Radnik 18]

... video that makes you out of breath !

<Link removed>

PLEASE NOTE ! WARNING ! WARNING !

THIS VIDEO CONTAIN REAL FOOTAGE OF SOLDIER KILLING !

IF THIS KINDA VIDEO IS NOT ALLOWED ON FORUM, PLEASE

MOD DELETE THIS POST.

[chops 111]

That video contains footage of what certainly appears to be real killing. You should've put a warning with that post. Mods probably gonna go nuts anyway...

[Tovarish 0]

... video that makes you out of breath !

iraqsniper PLEASE NOTE ! WARNING !

THIS VIDEO CONTAIN REAL FOOTAGE OF SOLDIER KILLING !

IF THIS KINDA VIDEO IS NOT ALLOWED ON FORUM, PLEASE

MOD DELETE THIS POST.

Quote[/b] ]§5)No posting of explicit images

No posting of pictures containing porn, real killing, mutilations, wounds, carnage, and other disgusting/explicit images. This also includes links to pages that contain such images. There have been a number of incidents where people have linked to news sites which unbeknownst to them contains obscene images a few mouse clicks away, while we can't expect people to check every link on a site it is strongly suggested that whenever making a post about a news item the post is structured in a way that provides the information without risk of breaching the rules. A good example of how to do this can be seen below. If you're ever unsure as to whether or not a link should be posted on the forum feel free to PM a moderator for guidance.

"I see...I see....that you are going on a looooong journey"

[xawery 0]

Haha, although this may be slightly off-topic I have a funny story to tell. To really appreciate it, one should remind oneself what the sub-title of this thread is

I was watching the news this morning, and the newsreader reported the apprehension of several people under suspicion of planning a terrorist attack. The digital background however was mismatched, and it referred to the next news item. As it happens, the next item was about Ikea being voted the best store of 2005...

So there I was, sipping my morning coffee, watching a report on possible terrorists with a great big IKEA logo in the background. All I could think was "It's true!!"

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]Sources: Airstrike may have killed bin Laden's No. 2

From David Ensor

CNN

Saturday, January 14, 2006; Posted: 3:23 a.m. EST (08:23 GMT)

(CNN) -- Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in the al Qaeda terrorist network -- was the target of a CIA airstrike Friday in a remote Pakistani village and may have been among those killed, knowledgeable U.S. sources told CNN.

There has been no confirmation that al-Zawahiri was killed in the attack, which took place in the village of Damadola, near the Afghan border.

However, the sources said there was intelligence suggesting he was in one of the buildings hit during the strike. (Watch how al-Zawahiri was targeted -- 5:39)

Pakistani officials were at the scene, trying to determine if al-Zawahiri was killed, the U.S. sources told CNN.

Contacted by CNN, Pakistan's information minister could not confirm that al-Zawahiri had been the target of a CIA strike. Both the Pentagon and the White House declined to comment on the reports.

Eighteen people died in Friday morning's strike -- eight men, five women and five children, Pakistani intelligence sources said. Three homes were targeted.

"We are conducting tests to identify the bodies," a Pakistani intelligence official told CNN.

The strike came a week after the Arabic language news network Al-Jazeera aired a new videotape with a message from al-Zawahiri, in which he called on U.S. President George W. Bush to admit defeat in Iraq.

U.S. authorities believe al-Zawahiri, 54, a doctor from a prominent Egyptian family, helped mastermind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He has also been indicted in the United States for his alleged role in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The U.S. government has put up a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture.

While bin Laden himself hasn't been heard from since October 2004, last week's videotape was the fifth message from al-Zawahiri released over the past year, including several claiming responsibility for the July attacks on London's transit system.

Considered the intellectual and ideological driving force behind al Qaeda, al-Zawahiri has been associated with bin Laden since at least 1987, when they first met in Pakistan. He is also believed to act as bin Laden's personal physician.

In 1998, al-Zawahiri merged his own Islamic militant group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, into bin Laden's organization.

Three months after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. forces attacked al-Zawahiri's residence in Afghanistan, killing his wife and children.

In March 2004, Pakistani troops launched an assault on an area in Waziristan province where intelligence indicated al-Zawahiri was hiding, but he was not captured.

Last month, Pakistani officials confirmed the death of a top al Qaeda official, Abu Hamza Rabia, who was killed in an explosion December 1 north of the border town of Miram Shah (Full story).

But witnesses gave conflicting accounts of how he died. Villagers said he was killed in a missile strike, while Pakistan offficials said he died while working with explosives.

Egyptian-born Rabia was described as al Qaeda's operations chief and No. 3 man.

CNN.com

[cozza 24]

Its nice to know that the US can fly into Pakistan and bomb what ever they want with there planes

[EiZei 0]

I suppose it's still cleaner than invading them or having the locals do it.

[Daniel 0]

Haha, although this may be slightly off-topic I have a funny story to tell. To really appreciate it, one should remind oneself what the sub-title of this thread is  

I was watching the news this morning, and the newsreader reported the apprehension of several people under suspicion of planning a terrorist attack. The digital background however was mismatched, and it referred to the next news item. As it happens, the next item was about Ikea being voted the best store of 2005...

So there I was, sipping my morning coffee, watching a report on possible terrorists with a great big IKEA logo in the background. All I could think was "It's true!!"  

Haha!

I knew there must have been subliminal messages in their weird adverts.

[Balschoiw 0]

The attack on a sovereign country obviously missed it´s goal.

It´s really kind of strange how easy the US break international law and endanger one of their key allies in the war on terror in the region. Pakistans Prime will have a hard time to survive this CIA provoked crisis which will endanger the whole process in the region and of course will even drive more people there into the arms of AQ.

Pakistan rally against US strike

Quote[/b] ]Thousands of Pakistanis have taken part in anti-American protests after an attack on a village near the Afghan border that killed 18 people.

The main demonstration was held in the main city of Karachi with protesters chanting "Death to America".

The missile strike apparently targeted al-Qaeda's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was said not to have been there.

The US has not commented on the strike. Pakistan has protested, but its leader warned people not to harbour militants.

"If we kept sheltering foreign terrorists here... our future will not be good," said President Pervez Musharraf in speech broadcast on state television.

US media say the attack was carried out by the CIA.

Zawahiri has eluded capture since the US overthrew the Taleban in Afghanistan in 2001 despite a $25m bounty on his head.

Osama Bin Laden's second-in-command is regarded as the ideological brains behind the al-Qaeda network, says BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera.

The Egyptian has also become its most visible spokesperson, issuing a number of video and audio tapes, whilst Osama Bin Laden has not been seen or heard from for more than a year.

Musharraf criticised

About 10,000 people rallied in Karachi, Pakistan's biggest city, chanting "Death to American Aggression" and "Stop bombing innocent people".

Hundreds of riot police were deployed to keep order.

A leader in the coalition of anti-US Islamic groups that organised the nationwide protests said General Musharraf must step down.

"The army cannot defend the country under in his leadership," Ghafoor Ahmed told protesters in Karachi.

In Samarbagh, near the Damadola village where the attack occurred, protesters denounced Gen Musharraf for co-operating with the US.

Foreign presence

Damadola is in the Bajaur tribal area, about 7km (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border.

Jets - or in some accounts a Predator drone - reportedly fired missiles at a particular housing compound in the village.

A Pakistani intelligence official told Reuters news agency that Damadola was the stronghold of a banned pro-Taleban group, the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi.

The US has about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, but Pakistan does not allow them to operate across the border.

Pakistan has about 70,000 troops in the border region.

[Heatseeker 0]

War against terror, or should we say war of terror has just taken more civilian lifes including inocent women and children, honestly i see no diference betwean a suicide bomber and someone who sends a guided missile at a civilian ocupied village, the whole thing starts to feel like a terrorist vs terrorist competition to see who can terrorise and kill more inocents.. ofcourse we all express our feelings when the victims are standing closer to our front door or make part of a country/society we are more familiar or closer with while everyone appears to be neutral towards it happening in the other side of the world .

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]Zawahri missed dinner that prompted US strike

By Zeeshan Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A dinner invitation to al Qaeda's second-in-command triggered a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan but Ayman al-Zawahri failed to show up, Pakistani intelligence officials said on Sunday.

Pakistan condemned Friday's strike, which killed at least 18 people, including women and children, and summoned U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker to protest.

There were anti-American demonstrations in several towns and cities on Sunday, and supporters of Islamist and secular parties mustered close to 10,000 people for a rally in the southern city of Karachi.

The Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that foreigners had been near the village of Damadola in the Bajaur region bordering Afghanistan and were the probable target.

Pakistani intelligence officials said they were checking reports up to seven foreign militants had been killed and their bodies removed by local supporters. But they said there were no indications Osama bin Laden's deputy, Zawahri, was there.

"He was invited for the dinner, but we have no evidence he was present," a senior intelligence official told Reuters.

Al Arabiya television quoted a source it said had contact with al Qaeda saying Zawahri was alive.

The U.S. government has not commented, but U.S. sources familiar with the operation said it was too early to determine his fate and the remains of the dead would have to be examined.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the airstrike was based on "very good" intelligence indicating Zawahri was at the targeted location.

Another Pakistani intelligence official said two local Islamist clerics, known for harboring al Qaeda militants, had attended the dinner but left hours before the airstrike at 3.00 a.m. (2200 GMT).

Reuters.com

[billybob2002 0]

War against terror, or should we say war of terror has just taken  more civilian lifes including inocent women and children, honestly i see no diference betwean a suicide bomber and someone who sends a guided missile at a civilian ocupied village, the whole thing starts to feel like a terrorist vs terrorist competition to see who can terrorise and kill more inocents.. ofcourse we all express our feelings when the victims are standing closer to our front door or make part of a country/society we are more familiar or closer with while everyone appears to be neutral towards it happening in the other side of the world .

The guy guiding the predator and firing the hellfire isn't thinking about the civilians he might kill but the target (the bad guy). He hopes that there are no civilians killed or wounded but he knows it is possible. The suicide bomber objective is to kill the maximum amount of civilians possible. If you do not see that difference, well wow. Those are my feelings and the world is a shitty place.

[Heatseeker 0]

The guy guiding the predator and firing the hellfire isn't thinking about the civilians he might kill but the target (the bad guy). He hopes that there are no civilians killed or wounded but he knows it is possible. The suicide bomber objective is to kill the maximum amount of civilians possible. If you do not see that difference, well wow. Those are my feelings and the world is a shitty place.

And you think that with sattelites and UAV's that they didnt know there were civilians in there? A suicide bomber might be brainwashed since birth, might be blinded by the madness of loosing his whole family, might just be a extremist, lunatic and ignorant fool or all of the above and more. The guy who drops a bomb on a civilian village or structure hoping to find a terrorist amongst the bodycount is no better. Guess they will have to keep on bombing civilians untill they get the right guys (and there are plenty of them).

This poor atempt classifies has a coward act of ruthless murder towards civilian people, even if al-Zawahiri was at the location there is no excuse, people are not expendable.

War against terror> war of terror> just terror seems more apropriate, certainly not war.

The world is indeed a shitty place, and seems to be growing worse every day.

[billybob2002 0]

The guy guiding the predator and firing the hellfire isn't thinking about the civilians he might kill but the target (the bad guy). He hopes that there are no civilians killed or wounded but he knows it is possible. The suicide bomber objective is to kill the maximum amount of civilians possible. If you do not see that difference, well wow. Those are my feelings and the world is a shitty place.

And you think that with sattelites and UAV's that they didnt know there were civilians in there? A suicide bomber might be brainwashed since birth, might be blinded by the madness of loosing his whole family, might just be a extremist, lunatic and ignorant fool or all of the above and more. The guy who drops a bomb on a civilian village or structure hoping to find a terrorist amongst the bodycount is no better. Guess they will have to keep on bombing civilians untill they get the right guys (and there are plenty of them).

This poor atempt classifies has a coward act of ruthless murder towards civilian people, even if al-Zawahiri was at the location there is no excuse, people are not expendable.

War against terror> war of terror> just terror seems more apropriate, certainly not war.

The world is indeed a shitty place, and seems to be growing worse every day.

You can look in the newspapers and find out that many people lives are expanable. Some criminals are offered plea deals in murder cases for lesser time. Life sentences in some countries don't mean "life" in prison but 15+ years and then released. Anyway, wars are not "perfect" and civilians are going to die because history has proving so. It sucks but it is reality. Alot of people do not wish civilians would die in wars but it does. I'm not going to "appeal to consequences" to what would happen if al-Zawahiri was found in that house and nothing was done because you already know who is this guy.

The objective of the strike was not terror bombing, like what went on in World War 2 and what majority of suicide bombers do, but something else and you know what. However, let me add, what happened in World War 2 was justifiable homicide (I did not see German bomber crews charged with murder following the war for bombing London) and suicide bombers are just murders.

[cozza 24]

I'm not going to "appeal to consequences" to what would happen if al-Zawahiri was found in that house and nothing was done because you already know who is this guy.

Another person who orders soldiers to kill civilans for one target. Bush and al-Zawahiri are allot alike.

[billybob2002 0]

I'm not going to "appeal to consequences" to what would happen if al-Zawahiri was found in that house and nothing was done because you already know who is this guy.

Another person who orders soldiers to kill civilans for one target. Bush and al-Zawahiri are allot alike.

Please let this be a joke or sarcasm.

[cozza 24]

I'm not going to "appeal to consequences" to what would happen if al-Zawahiri was found in that house and nothing was done because you already know who is this guy.

Another person who orders soldiers to kill civilans for one target. Bush and al-Zawahiri are allot alike.

Please let this be a joke or sarcasm.

No its not. I'm serious.

[billybob2002 0]

I'm not going to "appeal to consequences" to what would happen if al-Zawahiri was found in that house and nothing was done because you already know who is this guy.

Another person who orders soldiers to kill civilans for one target. Bush and al-Zawahiri are allot alike.

Please let this be a joke or sarcasm.

No its not. I'm serious.

Is it really worth pointing out the difference? I guess I do since you believe that hogwash. Let me just say al-Zawahiri supported the London transit system bombing and supported more of those attacks. If you really that retarded, which I doubt, you would realize that Bush has never purposely used the military or other offensive assets to target a civilian area just because it was a civilian area. In addition, he never stated that he wants to kill civilians. Al-Qaeda, which al-Zawahiri is #2, purposely attack civilians to try to achieve a goal.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I'm not going to "appeal to consequences" to what would happen if al-Zawahiri was found in that house and nothing was done because you already know who is this guy.

Another person who orders soldiers to kill civilans for one target. Bush and al-Zawahiri are allot alike.

Please let this be a joke or sarcasm.

No its not. I'm serious.

Is it really worth pointing out the difference? I guess I do since you believe that hogwash. Let me just say al-Zawahiri supported the London transit system bombing and supported more of those attacks. If you really that retarded, which I doubt, you would realize that Bush has never purposely used the military or other offensive assets to target a civilian area just because it was a civilian area. In addition, he never stated that he wants to kill civilians. Al-Qaeda, which al-Zawahiri is #2, purposely attack civilians to try to achieve a goal.

I agree

But I still feel that this is a grey area, because people from all over the world have many different oppinions, and that many feel that the US have made alot of bad decisions.

Unlike other nations in the UN, US have deliberately targeted civilian buildings such as radio and tv-stations. While they may have been spreading out propeganda, these bombings are no better than a suicide bombers desperate attact on western buildings or people in their own country, which also spreads propeganda by simply being there.

They are both terrible actions, and are a result of two nations (or people), that have their fundemental ideas of life and civilisations totally mixed up.

[cozza 24]

I'm not going to "appeal to consequences" to what would happen if al-Zawahiri was found in that house and nothing was done because you already know who is this guy.

Another person who orders soldiers to kill civilans for one target. Bush and al-Zawahiri are allot alike.

Please let this be a joke or sarcasm.

No its not. I'm serious.

Is it really worth pointing out the difference? I guess I do since you believe that hogwash. Let me just say al-Zawahiri supported the London transit system bombing and supported more of those attacks. If you really that retarded, which I doubt, you would realize that Bush has never purposely used the military or other offensive assets to target a civilian area just because it was a civilian area. In addition, he never stated that he wants to kill civilians. Al-Qaeda, which al-Zawahiri is #2, purposely attack civilians to try to achieve a goal.

Ih he didnt mean to attack civvies why hasnt he come forward and apolige to Pakistan or its victims. Shows what Bush thinks about the people in the area.

[Jinef 2]

Just an interesting note, psychological studies on the effects of WW2 violence have shown that the bombing of civilian populations did very little to alter the pshychological state of the population.

The strategists believed if they could British and German cities the population would become 'shell-shocked' and cease to be useful in the war effort. However quite the opposite occured, it was buisness as usual in London and Berlin.

The theory behind this is the mechanical and physical distance put between the combatants, the pilots were looking through a bombsight at 15,000 feet and could detach themselves from the fact they were killing thousands of civilians. The people below did not see the people inside the aircraft and simply viewed it as remote destruction without any personal affrontation.

On the opposite the spectrum the survivors of the holocaust had terrible psychological problems after the war, they had to stand in line as German individuals with faces killed their families and friends in front of them, the inter-personal violence is what affects most human beings the worst in combat.

So bringing what we have learnt in history to modern day context:

The populations underneath our laser guided bombs and cruise missiles are not weakened psychologically, they resolve against us is strengthened and they will fight harder.

Same goes for September 11, despite being only 33% successful on the terrorists behalf they did not have personal affrontation with the majority of the victims or the main population. America was immediately seen to be 'united' reinforcing the strengthened resolve effects of remote destruction.

(They did have personal affrontation with the people on the planes; however they didn't have long to get psychologically affected by it.)

So it can be concluded that if Al Queda wanted to 'terrorise' people they should not have chosen the Sep 11 methods. Sep 11 was a perfectly valid strategic strike at Government, Defense and Economy. They could have rounded up 2000 Americans and beheaded them on camera for example, that would have had a more terrorising effect. It can also be concluded that the Coalitions efforts to destroy any hostiles is not terrorising the populations of the target areas as many people on this forum claim. The remote destruction of people places and things reinforces hatred and resolve with little psychological impact.

If you want to terrorise populations with a military you need infantry on the ground with bayonets fixed; ready to torture, execute and rape. That shakes people up pretty soon and destroys will to fight. (Including the infantry themselves who after a while become combat inneffective and need to be put away in mental institutes.)

I just thought that was interesting to write ... sorry I will go away again now.

[Messiah 2]

an interesting theory indeed...

on those merits, would you then say that the 7/7 bombings were more traumatic, and psycological? Obviously the people who survived the blasts would have had the trauma of walking past the wreckage and bodies, the people in the same carriages, would have whitnesed a man blow himself up for the sake of religion... pretty intense stuff.

of course, the other 58million of us britians had the comfort of our sofa to sit and watch the events unfold, and i would assume were very detached from the true horror of what was going on.

it hasnt, though, exactly strengthened our resolve to carry on in Iraq and Afghanistan though? Im not criticising your theory, as i quite like it and see the logic behind it, but of course there will be exceptions.

[EiZei 0]

So, I assume if the 9/11 hijackers would have used nukes targeting pentagon, white house and the capitol it would have been fair game even if civilians were killed.. because they were targeting the enemy?

[Myst9999 0]

Well, you raise a interesting point. If the method used had been nuclear, would the response have been have been the same, i.e, would there have been a nuclear response in Afghanistan by the US?

At the time, an eye for an eye can seem very reasonable.