Zarqawi dead!

[Stellar]

Sanjuro, your ignorance of the military astounds me.

The funny thing is that they didnt try to capture him alive, but blowed him up, ok if they wanted to kill him why didnt they shot him if they did know the acctualy place where he is going and ecven saw it from heli? Yeah blow the evidence up

Why spend the time sending in the infantry (all the while he might escape before they arrive) and then risk soldiers lives capturing him when they can kill him quite easily?

and btw after this kind of explosion his head wouldnt have so many hairs they would be burned off, I have seen corpses of people after explosions and that head is not like the one of them.

It depends on the where the explosion takes place in relation to him. Its very possible that the hair wasnt all burnt off.

Imagine he blows up and his head fly away in safe place where US forces can collect it, heh, that head looks more like been cut off from body then kicked around a bit and then photographed and might as well it can be fake head, oh yeah you would be surprised how real looking human body parts they can make.

Or course. From the small picture of his chin and up, you can tell it was cut off of the body

Edit: oh now I watched a video where he had the chest, why US general said that then cant find nothing more than head and legs? Maybe a joke.

But still that explosion video looked like no on can get out of there in one piece, but Zarqwi is in good shape, I cant see any lethal wounds on this body.

You saw a picture of his body?

there shouldnt even exist an army. but something is needed for imperialism too, right?

Of course. The only reason armies exist are for imperialism

Edited June 9, 2006 by Stellar

[Sanjuro]

It depends on the where the explosion takes place in relation to him. Its very possible that the hair wasnt all burnt off.

He was in the bloody hause and then 2 bombs were thrown on the hause...

And hell now they are saying that he was still alive when they arriwed? Like in action movies where the top bad guy says some wicked words and then dies lol.

You saw a picture of his body?

Yes I did, well not all body but his head and chest.

Why spend the time sending in the infantry (all the while he might escape before they arrive) and then risk soldiers lives capturing him when they can kill him quite easily?

Well, maybe surround the bloody hause?

1. Civilians wont get hurt (for a record - one child died in explosion).

2. There can be a small chance that he will be captured and alive Zarqawi would shut conspiracy theorists like me.

[Fluffybunny]

Well, maybe surround the bloody hause?

1. Civilians wont get hurt (for a record - one child died in explosion).

2. There can be a small chance that he will be captured and alive Zarqawi would shut conspiracy theorists like me.

1. The house was very isolated; the video clear shows the house in the middle of empty space; only the people in thse house were at risk, and if you are staying with public enemy number 2, than you are risking your life anyway. There is no need to risk losing him or risking a soldiers life when jets can be in place and take him out from a safe distance. As you have never been in combat you have no idea what a body looks like that has been bombed, seeing a picture here or there means nothing and you do not know enough to make a sound judgement as to what happened( even though you continue to do so)

2. You know very well that even if he was captured you would still figure out a conspiricy of some sort(regardless of any evidence; that is your specialty here), it is ridiculous to think that you would ever be satisfied by any information coming from any person at any level of American government or military.

[StalingradK]

Yes, it's a great thing that happened, but sadly, it will probably do nothing. Most terrorists organizations can run even with a major leader.

I'm starting to think the war on terrorism is a bad idea, and even though people might get killed while doing so, education and toleration to others may be the way to go. Really think about it, you'd need to kill ever person part of a terrorist organization to end it. Marshall law would have to be enacted for terrorists to be completely erriadicated.

Meh, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.

Edited June 9, 2006 by StalingradK

[Mekorig]

Has i already said, and its funny to said it, the dead of Zarkawy isnt the end of the insurgets in Iraq like some people seems to belive. In fact, most of the groups are made of saddam suporters, private shiite militias or Iran sponsored groups. Al qaueda had little power in the zone.

[Stellar]

He was in the bloody hause and then 2 bombs were thrown on the hause...

And hell now they are saying that he was still alive when they arriwed? Like in action movies where the top bad guy says some wicked words and then dies lol.

It is more often than not the results of the explosion that kill, not necessairly the huge fireball itsself.

Yes I did, well not all body but his head and chest.

Where? I'd like to take a look.

Well, maybe surround the bloody hause?

1. Civilians wont get hurt (for a record - one child died in explosion).

2. There can be a small chance that he will be captured and alive Zarqawi would shut conspiracy theorists like me.

Surround the bloody house? That takes a certain amount of time (depending on how far away the nearest company/platoon is), and you risk the lives of each of those soldiers. If the soldiers go into the building, there would more likely than not be more deaths. But its very possible that it would be a standdown much like that where Uday and Qusay were killed... they couldnt just enter the house, they had to bring in a TOW and blow the house up. Why risk these lives when you can just drop a 500lbs bomb or 2?

[Sanjuro]

Where? I'd like to take a look.

I cant find the exacly the one I saw, but this is very similar

Surround the bloody house? That takes a certain amount of time (depending on how far away the nearest company/platoon is), and you risk the lives of each of those soldiers. If the soldiers go into the building, there would more likely than not be more deaths. But its very possible that it would be a standdown much like that where Uday and Qusay were killed... they couldnt just enter the house, they had to bring in a TOW and blow the house up. Why risk these lives when you can just drop a 500lbs bomb or 2?

So Americans are scared of a fair fight? Yeah let us risk with children lives, but not our precious soldier lifes. (1 children died in a attack)

Soldier is a soldier, he must risk with his life, but well thats a pretty old dignity codex, in our bloody time wars are fought without even seening the enemy and civilians are just statistic.

Bagdad is full with US forces they could get there in a few minutes as they acctualy did just before hause was bombed down.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Sanjuro

[Stellar]

So Americans are scared of a fair fight?

No... they are simply not stupid enough to seek one.

Yeah let us risk with children lives, but not our precious soldier lifes. (1 children died in a attack)

That child would have likely died if they used soldiers. You always point out how the US troops are such poor marksmen that they always hit people who run into the crossfire...

Bagdad is full with US forces they could get there in a few minutes as they acctualy did just before hause was bombed down.

Not all troops can be diverted from what they are presently doing to surround such a building. It can take quite a bit of troops to cordon a single building, depending on what the terrain is like and the layout of the house.

[Sanjuro]

No... they are simply not stupid enough to seek one.

Since when Americans dont seek a fight?

The U.S. has bombed 25 countries since WWII, invaded 15, and built

100 airbases on other people's soil through coercion and bribery.

US have 400,000 troops stationed in 135 of the 192 countries

recognized by the U.N. The U.K. comes a distant second,

with 35,000 troops abroad. US half-trillion-dollar military

budget is greater than that of all other nations combined.

That child would have likely died if they used soldiers. You always point out how the US troops are such poor marksmen that they always hit people who run into the crossfire...

Not all troops can be diverted from what they are presently doing to surround such a building. It can take quite a bit of troops to cordon a single building, depending on what the terrain is like and the layout of the house.

He would and he would not, you cant know that 100%, but when you drop 2 bombs on his head, yeah, there is no % at all(that he will survive).

How many troops needed to surround a hause? A squad I think..lol

How many exits do that hause had? Its not like he can jump out of a wall and run away from US helicopters and jets who are monitoring from the skys.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Sanjuro

[__Kratos__]

He would and he would not, you cant know that 100%, but when you drop 2 bombs on his head, yeah, there is no % at all(that he will survive).

How many troops needed to surround a hause? A squad I think..lol

How many exits do that hause had? Its not like he can jump out of a wall and run away from US helicopters and jets who are monitoring from the skys.

So very interesting you don't consider the terrorist tactics in your logic.

The leader of that branch was a mastermind in suicide attacks, kidnappings and beheadings.

Did you notice the "suicide" part at all?

From past raids the military had to look at suicide bombers blowing up the entire house, killing the entire unit and injuring soldiers and take that in as they made the choice to bomb the hell out of the home.

[Sanjuro]

So very interesting you don't consider the terrorist tactics in your logic.

The leader of that branch was a mastermind in suicide attacks, kidnappings and beheadings.

Did you notice the "suicide" part at all?

From past raids the military had to look at suicide bombers blowing up the entire house, killing the entire unit and injuring soldiers and take that in as they made the choice to bomb the hell out of the home.

Mastermind of beheadings? Sounds interesting. Anyway in his video he looked more like a moron not mastermind, but lets get to the point, do you think his hause was full with c4 or maybe he had some in his pockets?

But anyway you have a good point.

[__Kratos__]

Mastermind of beheadings? Sounds interesting. Anyway in his video he looked more like a moron not mastermind, but lets get to the point, do you think his hause was full with c4 or maybe he had some in his pockets?

But anyway you have a good point.

Well, not his machine gun video. Auto-weapons just aren't his thing. Planning and thinking was his sole job.

Well, with the number of suicide bombings he's planned, you would think he would have some of those materials around him more then not. The military doesn't have psychics to tell them otherwise.

[__Kratos__]

Well, maybe surround the bloody hause?

1. Civilians wont get hurt (for a record - one child died in explosion).

2. There can be a small chance that he will be captured and alive Zarqawi would shut conspiracy theorists like me.

1. The house was very isolated; the video clear shows the house in the middle of empty space; only the people in thse house were at risk, and if you are staying with public enemy number 2, than you are risking your life anyway. There is no need to risk losing him or risking a soldiers life when jets can be in place and take him out from a safe distance. As you have never been in combat you have no idea what a body looks like that has been bombed, seeing a picture here or there means nothing and you do not know enough to make a sound judgement as to what happened( even though you continue to do so)

2. You know very well that even if he was captured you would still figure out a conspiricy of some sort(regardless of any evidence; that is your specialty here), it is ridiculous to think that you would ever be satisfied by any information coming from any person at any level of American government or military.

The intel came in, the order was given out so fast to send out the F-16's that only one F-16 fighter made it to the target because of the need for speed in this operation for the chance he was going to run. Ground troops were out of the question for the time table.

[Maelstrom5]

NOW THE IRAQIS WILL NEVER BE FREE:(

Yeah, right. Too bad, eh? Poor Zarqawi can't behead US & British kidnapping victims on camera any more.

Boo ****in Hooo....

[Stellar]

Since when Americans dont seek a fight?

The U.S. has bombed 25 countries since WWII, invaded 15, and built

100 airbases on other people's soil through coercion and bribery.

US have 400,000 troops stationed in 135 of the 192 countries

recognized by the U.N. The U.K. comes a distant second,

with 35,000 troops abroad. US half-trillion-dollar military

budget is greater than that of all other nations combined.

Why are you changing the subject, hmm?

He would and he would not, you cant know that 100%, but when you drop 2 bombs on his head, yeah, there is no % at all(that he will survive).

Of course theres no chance he'll survive. Thats why they dropped 2, to make sure that he doesnt get away.

How many troops needed to surround a hause? A squad I think..lol

How many exits do that hause had? Its not like he can jump out of a wall and run away from US helicopters and jets who are monitoring from the skys.

Of course. Thats all a cordon and search operation entails... a couple of guys that watch the front and back door

Leave the discussion of military tactics to those who know and understand them. Leave your ignorance elsewhere.

[skyeagle409]

name='Sanjuro' date='Jun 9 2006, 09:35 PM' post='1225251']

Since when Americans dont seek a fight?

The U.S. has bombed 25 countries since WWII, invaded 15, and built

100 airbases on other people's soil through coercion and bribery.

US have 400,000 troops stationed in 135 of the 192 countries

recognized by the U.N. The U.K. comes a distant second,

with 35,000 troops abroad. US half-trillion-dollar military

budget is greater than that of all other nations combined.

Let's take a look at some of them. Because we bombed North Korea, South Koreans are free. We bombed the Serbs in Bosnia and that stopped the slaughter there. We bombed Serbia in order to stop the Serb atrocities in Kosovo. We went into Panama and the folks there rejoiced when we took Noriega into custody. In Grenada, we were hailed as heroes. I know, I was there on a support mission and many people congratulated us. We went into Vietnam to stop communism yet then President Johnson played around and tied our hands and the rest is history. Two years after the last American troop left, hundreds of thousands of innocent victims were put to death as predicted if we left Vietnam as it was. We went into Kuwait to throw out Saddam, which messed up his ambitions to take over the oil in the Middle East. We can't forget his threat to his neighbors if they didn't forgive his Iranian war debts; a message that was delivered by King Hussein and President Mubarack. Regarding Afghanistan, we supported the war against the Soviets with arms and we overthrew a despicable government there years later and that country has a new government thanks to America. In Iraq, it has a new government too, but the work there is not finished but when that job is done the Iraqi people will live much better lives than they did under Saddan Hussein.

Thanks to America, millions of people around the globe are now free.

He would and he would not, you cant know that 100%, but when you drop 2 bombs on his head, yeah, there is no % at all(that he will survive).

How many troops needed to surround a hause? A squad I think..lol

Whatever number it takes.

How many exits do that hause had? Its not like he can jump out of a wall and run away from US helicopters and jets who are monitoring from the skys.

Could there have been a possibility there were escape tunnels beneath that house?

Edited June 10, 2006 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

name='Sanjuro' date='Jun 9 2006, 09:23 PM' post='1225229']

I cant find the exacly the one I saw, but this is very similar

So Americans are scared of a fair fight?

Who says we have to fight on the enemy's terms? That reminds me how the Iranians used children to clear mine fields during the war with Iraq. Is that what you would consider fighting fair? March in a straight line into the teeth of an entrenched enemy?

Yeah let us risk with children lives, but not our precious soldier lifes. (1 children died in a attack)

How many children's lives were lost thanks to the terrorist in Iraq? Can you supply us with some numbers?

Bagdad is full with US forces they could get there in a few minutes as they acctualy did just before hause was bombed down.

The troops were already there before the first bomb fell. After all, who guided the first bomb to its target?

Edited June 10, 2006 by skyeagle409

[esotericEntity]

I'm sorry, but I actually laughed out loud at that.

And sanjuro.....didn't expect anything more out of you.

Typical to try and pull a conspiracy out of thin air and then being not only an armchair general, but an expert medical examiner.

what I find really amusing is how angry this whole thing will make democrats. How dare something good happen, that wont help democrats get votes in 08 at all, but more dead Americans suely would.

exactly, because your making an assumption that the videos are bugus (keyword ASSUMPTION) to block the truth from coming in your head.. if you even pay attention to some of the video, you will see what we are talking about.

fantasy does not exist in the videos. you guys want sources? proof? there it is people. all sources were mentioned in the videos. do the research man that all im asking.

[Mr Slayer]

Wait, how's Zarqavi's death a success?

This means more outraged terrorists. Good job there W.

[Sanjuro]

Of course theres no chance he'll survive. Thats why they dropped 2, to make sure that he doesnt get away.

I was speaking about that child who died not Zarqawi..

Leave the discussion of military tactics to those who know and understand them. Leave your ignorance elsewhere.

And you understand more from military tactics? You are just 17 years old, you even havent shot a gun.

[Sanjuro]

Who says we have to fight on the enemy's terms? That reminds me how the Iranians used children to clear mine fields during the war with Iraq. Is that what you would consider fighting fair? March in a straight line into the teeth of an entrenched enemy?

Say hallo to propaganda. They never did such thing, acctualy US military gave Sadam chemical mass destruction weapons in this war and he killed half million Iranians, mostly civilians. And that US fault as well as Sadams.

How many children's lives were lost thanks to the terrorist in Iraq? Can you supply us with some numbers?

Not as much as US forces have killed since 2003.

[bluelight]

i still say killing him is stupid. Letting him die as a martyr only send him off to heaven regardless what he did when he was alive. They should have taken him alive and make him pay for smearing the good name of Islam! >.>

[skyeagle409]

QUOTE(Sanjuro @ Jun 10 2006, 08:57 AM)

Say hallo to propaganda. They never did such thing, acctualy US military gave Sadam chemical mass destruction weapons in this war and he killed half million Iranians, mostly civilians. And that US fault as well as Sadams.

Not as much as US forces have killed since 2003.

First of all, you need to understand that Iran did in fact, use children to clear mine fields with their own bodies and it was no secret either, so how did you arrive at the notion that Iranian use of children to clear mine fields were nothing more than propaganda?

___________________________________________________________________________

“In the past,” wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, “we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone.” Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. “Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.”

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-demons

__________________________________________________________________________

As far as chemical weapons suppliers to Saddam you had better take a look at Europe and we did not supply Saddam with Chech, L-29 aircraft that were later modified by Saddam for the sole purpose of spraying WMD chemicals on cities and elsewhere either. Some were destroyed by U.S. aircraft years ago.

Edited June 10, 2006 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Not as much as US forces have killed since 2003.

Terrorist are in the business of deliberately killing children, not the U.S. military. Terrorist hide behind children while shooting at our soldiers so what you are presenting is nothing more than propaganda.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Say hallo to propaganda. They never did such thing, acctualy US military gave Sadam chemical mass destruction weapons in this war and he killed half million Iranians, mostly civilians. And that US fault as well as Sadams.

Not as much as US forces have killed since 2003.

No. This silliness is your propaganda.