AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: MAY HE REST IN PIECES!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Quote:A source tells The Jawa Report that Adam Gadahn is dead

[Image: adam_Gadahn_FBI.jpg]

Is American al Qaeda member and indicted traitor Adam Gadahn dead? Shortly after a U.S. Predator drone attack killed Abu Laith al-Libi last month rumors began to circulate on Islamic message board that Gadahn had been one of those killed in the raid. Later, a Pakistani newspaper quoted "sources" saying Gadahn was killed.

NBC News also claimed that it had a source in Pakistan who was friends with Adam Gadahn and that Gadahn had disappeared after the Predator strike. Gadahn's friends, said the story, were worried about him.

This week a trusted source revealed to me that he was hearing from Pakistan that Gadahn was most likely dead. I asked him if his sources weren't the same as NBC? No, he replied, he had a different source of information.

Then why hasn't the U.S. confirmed Gadahn's demise? Too many body parts, he said. Very little left of any one on the ground. Could take some time, or we may never have confirmation.

How much do I trust the person who told me this? On a scale of 1-10, he's an 11. It's more a question of his sources than anything else. His sources seem to believe Gadahn has gone to meet his 72 virgins.

So, is Adam Gadahn dead? I know we've been down this road before, and I know a lot of this is wishful thinking, but Magic Eight Ball says outlook good.
I read about 1 week ago of a "Dawn" report that his friends feared he was killed in that strike with Libi.

I wish he had not made these choices. What a mess of a life.

Anyway,looks like we have some good eyes in Waziristan,another explosion takes place,"wandering Arabs" perish:

HERE
I think he may have beena man of very high principals who couldn't abide by what the US is doing to the ME.
gray ghost Wrote:I think he may have beena man of very high principals who couldn't abide by what the US is doing to the ME.

Translation:

You admire people who are stone killers.

You are vile.
Laser guided bombs who turn humans to bloody rags are a bit vile, too. So are cluster bombs, crippling civilians many years after the end of a war. Americans don't face them, but use them on Muslims. I mean, Mr Gadahn must have had some motivation to betray the home the brave.
sunsettommy Wrote:
gray ghost Wrote:I think he may have beena man of very high principals who couldn't abide by what the US is doing to the ME.

Translation:

You admire people who are stone killers.

You are vile.

No tommy, I am not vile and I don't amire the guy. I do understand why people such as him seek revenge against the US and so do many other Americans who write about it and get a lot of sympathy for their views.

And would you please not attack me personally for 'my' views? I would have a few things to say about your views but I limit my comments to disagreeing with you and explaining why I feel you are wrong. For example tommy, do you admire American military people who murder innocent Iraqi civilians in Iraq, their country, and are shown to have done so on camera?
I also believe such people are honest in their views - but extremely stupid for accepting such easily disproved disinformation. Sadly, any who willingly choose to kill innocent civilians because they are told they are unable to succeed in targeting soldiers, are not worth living.
WmLambert Wrote:I also believe such people are honest in their views - but extremely stupid for accepting such easily disproved disinformation. Sadly, any who willingly choose to kill innocent civilians because they are told they are unable to succeed in targeting soldiers, are not worth living.

I would agree with you in the case of those who kill innocent civilians when it serves no purpose. In the case of the Dresden firebombing for one example, it is quite questionable whether or not it served a useful purpose. My opinion is that it didn't of course.

If one can only see a useful purpose being served when one's own side kills civilians then that person needs to re-evaluate his priorities. This is my message William and I consider it to be an honourable task to keep stating it.
Stay on topic, this has nothing to do with the Dresden bombing.
It is on topic because it has everything to do with killing innocent civilians. Regardless of whether it bothers you or not. Try to be more polite and address the issue like a grown up if you have something to say to me. If not then please just ignore what I say.

Thank you.
Why have you written nothing on innocent citizens being slaughtered by al-Qaeda?
gray ghost Wrote:...I would agree with you in the case of those who kill innocent civilians when it serves no purpose.
The extension of that logic is that it is totally moral and correct to kill innocent civilians if it can be rationalized as serving some purpose. The problem is that the terrorists' prime motive is to influence the media - and by doing so, move their agenda to the spotlight. The civilian dead are put forward to lend weight to arguments that do not stand of their own accord. The rationalization is wrong and only succeeds in giving a platform for a wrong agenda.
WmLambert wrote:
Quote:The extension of that logic is that it is totally moral and correct to kill innocent civilians if it can be rationalized as serving some purpose.

This is indeed true and you yourself would consider it moral and logic that the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am totally in disagreement with you on what the motive of the terrorists really is and have said so repeatedly. Rather than just continue to state what we believ the onus is on both of us to back up our claims. You first if you care to do so. I'm always anxious to hear what 'you' say even though I seldm agree.
Germany,like modern Muslims,decided to massacre innocent civilians which IMO makes them fair game. I see lots of similarities between modern Islam and 1940 German culture personally. Dresden burning was good,it took away from the Nazis and saved some of our lives. I wish we could have burnt it and Berlin and 100 other German cities in 1942.

I wish all Germans could have been dead by 1933,it would have saved all their victim's lives. I rarely get what I wish for.
Palladin Wrote:Germany,like modern Muslims,decided to massacre innocent civilians which IMO makes them fair game. I see lots of similarities between modern Islam and 1940 German culture personally. Dresden burning was good,it took away from the Nazis and saved some of our lives. I wish we could have burnt it and Berlin and 100 other German cities in 1942.

I wish all Germans could have been dead by 1933,it would have saved all their victim's lives. I rarely get what I wish for.

You see William, it's really in the eye of the beholder, even though my guess is that you don't subscribe to this sort of a display of hate toward the entire German people. We both understand completely that this is irrational.
There is a difference between carpet bombing because military positions were purposefully placed among civilians, and collateral damage was necessary. From what I understand of Dresden There were three reasons for bombing Dresden.
  1. It was an unbombed safe haven where troops were mustering from falling back from the Russian advance.
  2. It was a legitimate military target because of the munitions plants and armories there, including an extensive rail center which aided the Nazi army in its movement.
  3. It was an object lesson to Stalin.

The RAF in January 1945 Wrote:Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.
William,

I disagree with your nuance. The rules of land warfare are GENTLEMEN's rules established to keep combat only among the professionals in modern times ONLY.

Germany and her murder Inc. violated it to such an extent that killing ALL Germans was permissable. Why worry about dead millions of Germans when we had OUR people to concern ourselves with? I care more for their victims,not the perps.

I'm glad we burnt Dresden to the ground and wish we had that ability as early as 1939. I'd have burnt(and so would FDR) every German city to the ground. Japanese as well,this would have saved millions of INNOCENTS.

This Geneva convention crap doesn't work when one side disregards it as today's Muslims do. It ties the hands of the good guys,not the bad guys. In effect,it is "gun control" where one side doesn't obey the law.

Dead Germans in 1940 = live Jews,Americans,Frenchmen,Brits and Russki.

If they want to play by the rules,GOOD,if they don't,not a problem. Same with Muslims today,IMO.

For example,check out the article below. My view is,IF I can kill the perps and it gets their kids,wives,mothers and grandpaps,I WILL! This clearly violates the Geneva conventions. I could care less about a document meant for gentleman's warfare.

It's the harsh logic of war,it's us or it's them,it is our mothers or theirs.

HERE
The reply to that is the much-offered rebuttal, "If you act like them, then what is the difference?"

The cause of the evil in Nazi-Germany was profound, and too many of the population enabled it, but after the war - those same people embraced the U.S. as saviors. Had the U.S. occupation soldiers acted to repay the Nazi atrocities in kind, that reconciliation would not have occurred.

The Dresden Allied bombing was close to the end of the war and is argued to have been unnecessary. Military planners at the time figured otherwise. The effect from the bombing was thousands of killed and injured, but also helped to end the war.
William,

Here's the difference. FDR wanted freedom,Hitler wanted rule w/o opposition. Hitler started war,FDR responded.

The harsh logic of war is you win the thing asap. That means removing the enemy side's abilities and desires asap. Since they started the war and chose murder as a tactic,they open up their people to utter destruction.

Lucky for them we relented.

I see a da,mn big difference between my father and a typical German for the record,notwithstanding we killed a whole lot of their people preventing them killing a whole lot more innocent people. Using your logic,I have to allow the bad guy a lot of freedom of action.

Not a way to win a war and I remind you we haven't won much since 1945 and such subjective thinking became the standard here,either.
WmLambert Wrote:There is a difference between carpet bombing because military positions were purposefully placed among civilians, and collateral damage was necessary. From what I understand of Dresden There were three reasons for bombing Dresden.
  1. It was an unbombed safe haven where troops were mustering from falling back from the Russian advance.
  2. It was a legitimate military target because of the munitions plants and armories there, including an extensive rail center which aided the Nazi army in its movement.
  3. It was an object lesson to Stalin.

The RAF in January 1945 Wrote:Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.

According to William Shirer.

The Russians made a request that the allies BOMB Dresden.
Pages: 1 2