sethstorm: MythDragon: Look, dude...if you want to kill yourself, try this:
[media.katu.com image 405x304]
Rope is like 7 cents a foot. An AGM-114 Hellfire missle is about $68,000 dollars. You'd really save us a lot of money.

Thanks
*signed* The American Taxpayers.

Except that $68,000 missile makes sure the job gets done.

And granted, is a lot more fun to watch.

Valiente: I_C_Weener: For those non-Spanish speakers, Lahore means the Hore.

Who else just pictured a squad of Navy SEALS attacking the tapas bar in a rundown Spanish resort?

Also: Better sack up and start acting like you want an empire, America. You've gone like the Romans after Christianity became the state religion: everybody's biatch.

/sprays Bud Light out nose
//load up the 4x4, Zeke...our country's honor has been besmirched

Does the Dow go up or down when when of these dirt bags is erased?

Current Resident: So...if U.S. forces capture him, does that mean that he gets the $10 million bounty?

Since he provided information leading to his own capture? Yes, he gets the reward, the fines and penalties against him immediately go up by $10M.

The US would like to see him in jail 'behind bars'.

We need a big ass drone that can drop a jail on top of him

I_C_Weener: For those non-Spanish speakers, Lahore means the Hore.

ROFLMAO! You, señor, owe me a can of Dr. Pepper....for when I read your comment I laughed so hard my soda ended up gettin spilled.

/$0.60 plz (LOL!)

Ooh, a chance to get one of them there scary TERRISTS!!
That will make a bunch of paranoid senile and other assorted sheep very happy.

Your mother is a Lahore, Trebeck

I really wish we could just say "screw you guys, we're going home" to the entire world and just stop getting involved everywhere. Every nation in the world is run by adults. Let them solve their own damn problems. We could have a standard humanitarian response, maybe just air-dropping a shiatload of food and supplies when needed, and otherwise just let the world sort itself out.

I'm sure there are a million reasons why this is a bad idea but it sounds so good on paper.

Kyoki: [do not taunt the dynamite monkey]

I'm just wondering what the squirrel lying on the fence could represent geopolitically.

So...when did "challenge accepted" get redefined as "we know what to do but we aren't going to do it"?

RanDomino: I love how these articles contain blatant propaganda in the first word ("terror leader") and no one questions it anymore.

So, masterminding the murder of 200 people doesn't make you a terror leader?

Sympathizes.

SoCalSurfer: 10 million dead or alive you say?

Beats making soccer balls

When has ANYONE collected one of these bounties?

/serious question

SharkTrager: RanDomino: I love how these articles contain blatant propaganda in the first word ("terror leader") and no one questions it anymore.

So, masterminding the murder of 200 people doesn't make you a terror leader?

I'm not going to say that a couple hundred is nothing, but Osama got a couple thousand in one day.

This guy is a terror also-ran.

SharkTrager
So, masterminding the murder of 200 people doesn't make you a terror leader?

Only if we're fair about it. How many civilians have been killed by the US military and drones under Obama? Ohh, right, but those were for "good reasons"- unlike Muslims, who kill because they are black-hearted beings of pure evil.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Why do we use missiles anyway? Wouldn't a gatling gun loaded with .50 hollowpoints limit civilian casualties?

gatling gun would require that you be with in a close range to do it. (ie in side the boarders of the country and put the SF person in harms way). A missile can be fired form out side of boarders of the country and don't put any of our people in harms way.

What a weird coincidence! I'll be in Urmom tomorrow.

Someone need to pop a paper bag just to see him crap his burka.

jumac: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Why do we use missiles anyway? Wouldn't a gatling gun loaded with .50 hollowpoints limit civilian casualties?

gatling gun would require that you be with in a close range to do it. (ie in side the boarders of the country and put the SF person in harms way). A missile can be fired form out side of boarders of the country and don't put any of our people in harms way.

Also, a machine gun requires a straight line path, regardless of its action type, caliber, or bullet type.
A cruise missile can turn, so it can not only be fired from further away, but adjust its approach to hit a target that doesn't have a line of sight you could point a gun at it from.

Somacandra: croesius: Evil Mackerel: RanDomino: I love how these articles contain blatant propaganda in the first word ("terror leader") and no one questions it anymore.

"Area man" would be better.

Well, I can't just call you "Man"

You could say "Dennis"

Marginally Dissatisfied Mike: croesius: Evil Mackerel: RanDomino: I love how these articles contain blatant propaganda in the first word ("terror leader") and no one questions it anymore.

"Area man" would be better.

Well, I can't just call you "Man"

You could say "Dennis".

I didn't know y'all were called Dennis!

croesius: Somacandra: croesius: Evil Mackerel: RanDomino: I love how these articles contain blatant propaganda in the first word ("terror leader") and no one questions it anymore.

"Area man" would be better.

Well, I can't just call you "Man"

You could say "Dennis"

Marginally Dissatisfied Mike: croesius: Evil Mackerel: RanDomino: I love how these articles contain blatant propaganda in the first word ("terror leader") and no one questions it anymore.

"Area man" would be better.

Well, I can't just call you "Man"

You could say "Dennis".

I didn't know y'all were called Dennis!

Is your name not Dennis, then?

RanDomino: SharkTrager
So, masterminding the murder of 200 people doesn't make you a terror leader?

Only if we're fair about it. How many civilians have been killed by the US military and drones under Obama? Ohh, right, but those were for "good reasons"- unlike Muslims, who kill because they are black-hearted beings of pure evil.

You may not think so, but there is a difference between killing people who are in close physical proximity to a legitimate target or killing people who are mistaken for a legitimate target, and killing civilians for the sole purpose of killing a maximum number of civilians.

It's all a matter of intent. Saeed and his ilk believe that anyone who is either Western or Indian should be killed. He can afford all the bravado because there are two things that he knows for sure:
1) he knows there are people Pakistan's government who share his views and will protect him.
2) he knows that as long as he is out in public addressing large crowds he will not be "droned" because Americans will take maximum precautions to avoid civilian casualties.

capt.hollister: You may not think so, but there is a difference between killing people who are in close physical proximity to a legitimate target or killing people who are mistaken for a legitimate target, and killing civilians for the sole purpose of killing a maximum number of civilians.

It's all a matter of intent


I doubt the families/friends/loved ones/community of such "acceptable collateral damage" agrees.

Would you be OK if your Mother, Father and siblings were killed in an attack on a "legitimate target"?

Think about it. We can justify anything we want to, and so will they.

danceswithcrows: dynamite

Duh, Uzbekistan obviously.

*rolls eyes*

FarkinHostile: capt.hollister: You may not think so, but there is a difference between killing people who are in close physical proximity to a legitimate target or killing people who are mistaken for a legitimate target, and killing civilians for the sole purpose of killing a maximum number of civilians.

It's all a matter of intent


I doubt the families/friends/loved ones/community of such "acceptable collateral damage" agrees.

Would you be OK if your Mother, Father and siblings were killed in an attack on a "legitimate target"?

Think about it. We can justify anything we want to, and so will they.

The violent death of innocents is hard to accept. People like Saeed count on this fact to hide in plain sight, knowing full well that moral people will not risk killing bystanders in an attempt to take him out. He, however, has no such morality and specifically targets innocents.

So here's the question: do you risk killing a small, but significant, number of innocent bystanders in an effort to take him out or do you spare him and run the risk that he will target and kill an even larger number of innocent civilians ?

/moral relativism is a b*tch

capt.hollister: FarkinHostile: capt.hollister: You may not think so, but there is a difference between killing people who are in close physical proximity to a legitimate target or killing people who are mistaken for a legitimate target, and killing civilians for the sole purpose of killing a maximum number of civilians.

It's all a matter of intent


I doubt the families/friends/loved ones/community of such "acceptable collateral damage" agrees.

Would you be OK if your Mother, Father and siblings were killed in an attack on a "legitimate target"?

Think about it. We can justify anything we want to, and so will they.

The violent death of innocents is hard to accept. People like Saeed count on this fact to hide in plain sight, knowing full well that moral people will not risk killing bystanders in an attempt to take him out. He, however, has no such morality and specifically targets innocents.

So here's the question: do you risk killing a small, but significant, number of innocent bystanders in an effort to take him out or do you spare him and run the risk that he will target and kill an even larger number of innocent civilians ?

/moral relativism is a b*tch


Um, except my point was that dead is dead to the people who love the deceased. You can sit here all day long and make up hypothetical situations that justify innocent civilian deaths to your mind, and they will do the very same. Do you think the families of the WTC victims and the families of the victims of a misplaced drone missile feel any differently?

You can feel you have the moral high ground all day long, but we have killed more innocent civilians in Afghanistan/Iraq than were killed in 9/11. To the families your reasons ring hollow, as do their reasons do to us. Dead is Dead.

Jesus Wept.

FarkinHostile: capt.hollister: FarkinHostile: capt.hollister: You may not think so, but there is a difference between killing people who are in close physical proximity to a legitimate target or killing people who are mistaken for a legitimate target, and killing civilians for the sole purpose of killing a maximum number of civilians.

It's all a matter of intent


I doubt the families/friends/loved ones/community of such "acceptable collateral damage" agrees.

Would you be OK if your Mother, Father and siblings were killed in an attack on a "legitimate target"?

Think about it. We can justify anything we want to, and so will they.

The violent death of innocents is hard to accept. People like Saeed count on this fact to hide in plain sight, knowing full well that moral people will not risk killing bystanders in an attempt to take him out. He, however, has no such morality and specifically targets innocents.

So here's the question: do you risk killing a small, but significant, number of innocent bystanders in an effort to take him out or do you spare him and run the risk that he will target and kill an even larger number of innocent civilians ?

/moral relativism is a b*tch


Um, except my point was that dead is dead to the people who love the deceased. You can sit here all day long and make up hypothetical situations that justify innocent civilian deaths to your mind, and they will do the very same. Do you think the families of the WTC victims and the families of the victims of a misplaced drone missile feel any differently?

You can feel you have the moral high ground all day long, but we have killed more innocent civilians in Afghanistan/Iraq than were killed in 9/11. To the families your reasons ring hollow, as do their reasons do to us. Dead is Dead.

Jesus Wept.

All your points are absolutely true, there is no denying that.

I believe the moral high ground can still be claimed when death is the accidental result of being in a war zone as opposed to being the target of blind hatred.

When a US fighter pilot bombed and killed Canadian troops, it generated a lot of anger, but not one of my fellow Canadians travelled south to kill Americans in retaliation, even after a US court cleared the pilot of all charges.

To give a different example: many, many, countless innocent civilians died, both intentionally and unintentionally during WWII. Yet, most people would agree that the need to stop Hitler and the spread of Naziism in Europe and the spread of the brutal and cruel Japanese empire in Asia, outweighed even those deaths. Causing all those people to die was more moral, or at least less immoral, than the alternative.

It was my understanding that Jesus is kept busy helping people win lotteries and football games...