Rolling up Al Qaeda in Somalia

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dannubis


If by any chance an imaginary top Palestinian bombmaker was hiding in an imaginary remote Israeli village, and word got out, would you still approve to bomb the place ?

Imaginary speaking that is ?

Yes. I suspect hed have a hard time hiding there though.

BTW, how many Belgians died under UK-US bombs during WW2?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by dannubis


If by any chance an imaginary top Palestinian bombmaker was hiding in an imaginary remote Israeli village, and word got out, would you still approve to bomb the place ?

Imaginary speaking that is ?

If it was an Israeli village, Israeli troops or policemen could enter without triggering a battle.

If it was in, say, Gaza, the same is not true.

None of this is to say I'm particularly pleased with the methods employed in such a situation or here (airstrikes).

Both options - ground attack or airstrikes have their problems.

-Arrian

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by dannubis


No indeed, no one in his right mind would even think of defending that one.

I hear clues are cheap at Walmart. You might consider buying a few.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


If it was an Israeli village, Israeli troops or policemen could enter without triggering a battle.

If it was in, say, Gaza, the same is not true.

None of this is to say I'm particularly pleased with the methods employed in such a situation or here (airstrikes).

Both options - ground attack or airstrikes have their problems.

-Arrian

ground attacks are clearly better, because that leads to more deaths among the EEVIL crusader-zionist imperialists, which causes them to leave, and to realize that the only way to solve the problem is to adopt the policy prescripitons of folks like Dannubis and Jaako. The problem with air strikes is that if they succeed, they allow the eevil neoliberal Americans to maintain their current policies.

[dannubis]

@ Corformo boy

Next time I will put "sarcasm" in ok ?

[dannubis]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


ground attacks are clearly better, because that leads to more deaths among the EEVIL crusader-zionist imperialists, which causes them to leave, and to realize that the only way to solve the problem is to adopt the policy prescripitons of folks like Dannubis and Jaako. The problem with air strikes is that if they succeed, they allow the eevil neoliberal Americans to maintain their current policies.

No, if you ware looking at what you shoot chances are you might end up killing a lot less innocent bystanders...

Again, do not put words in my mouth I did not speak.

[Arrian]

I always think of "Blackhawk Down" when people rip on the airstrikes. As I understand it, that started as a raid by ground troops/choppers aimed at arresting a warlord (fairly equivalent to a high-level AQ leader). That ended up being a ground battle between a small, highly-trained and well-armed group of US soldiers and an unknown but high number of locals. The result was a bloodbath. Surely civilians died there too.

It's unclear to me, based on that experience, that sending in a strike team of special forces would have been "cleaner."

And yes, to some it* would have been better 'cause some of our troops would've died. But I continue to believe (perhaps erroneously) that those who hold that view here on 'poly are few in number.

-Arrian

* - a bloody ground attack in which civilians died

[Last Conformist]

*Psst* It's well-known that street battles never kill civilians. Just look at Stalingrad, Beirut, and Grozny.

[dannubis]

???

I never ever advocated anyone to die, for whatever reason, for whatever price.

But if you want to take someone out, bite the bullet and do not choose the safest way and drop a bomb (IF THIS MEANS you kill more civilians this way).

And as far as I am concerned a sniper is still safer than a rocket or bomb for the bystanders.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dannubis


No, if you ware looking at what you shoot chances are you might end up killing a lot less innocent bystanders...

Again, do not put words in my mouth I did not speak.

You think they werent looking where they were shooting? What evidence is there of that. If you are able to identify, based on limited intell, from a distance, which house has high level AQ, which has low level guys, and which is just civilians, then I suggest you get a job with the US military, cause they could sure use you.

Personally, I dont think, from everything ive read, that its nearly as easy as you claim.

[Arrian]

At the end of the day, MOBIUS and dannubis would only be happy if the US gave up trying to get this guy. As long as he hides in villages surrounded by civilians (which will be all the time), he's immune. And that's ok, 'cause after all, America was asking for it anyway.

-Arrian

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
*Psst* It's well-known that street battles never kill civilians. Just look at Stalingrad, Beirut, and Grozny.

yes those are of course typical examples of in-out raids that would be required to kill a few designated persons

*psst* sarcasm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dannubis
???

I never ever advocated anyone to die, for whatever reason, for whatever price.

But if you want to take someone out, bite the bullet and do not choose the safest way and drop a bomb (IF THIS MEANS you kill more civilians this way).

And as far as I am concerned a sniper is still safer than a rocket or bomb for the bystanders.

Youre the guy who thinks you air drop a single sniper in.

Have you ever actually been paradropped? In a place where there are people with guns who want to kill you?

[Arrian]

The Blackhawk Down incident is far more analogous.

-Arrian

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Arrian
At the end of the day, MOBIUS and dannubis would only be happy if the US gave up trying to get this guy. As long as he hides in villages surrounded by civilians (which will be all the time), he's immune. And that's ok, 'cause after all, America was asking for it anyway.

-Arrian

No, get him by all means, but at least try to limit civilian casualties. not just lip service.