Zarqawi dead

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-09 09:44am

Ace Pace wrote:I wonder how he died, internal wounds of some sort?

Traumatic, lead-induced cerebral hemorrhaging?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-06-09 09:45am

Surlethe wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:I wonder how he died, internal wounds of some sort?
Traumatic, lead-induced cerebral hemorrhaging?

I would imagine his corpses head wouldn't be fit to be displayed.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-06-09 09:47am

two thoughts....

1. how many "non-combatants" were in the area of his home?
2. that quote of bertle brackt about "the bitch who bore him is still in heat" refering to the death of hitler was nice, but we still have stalin....

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2006-06-09 09:51am

fgalkin wrote:It's not the mistake, it's the bullshit descriptions of butchery and the whole "eeevil Romans killing the poor barbarians" crap. Plus, the sheer irony of him criticizing a classical scholar while making a ridiculous error. And no, it wasn't a "slip of the finger." He doesn't say it once, but twice, which means that he honestly thought a legion is 50,000 men strong, a riduculous assumption for anyone who knows anything about the Roman Empire. It's like publishing an astronomy article while using the Ptolemaic system.

Frankly, having a guy with no military training, any serious amount of study, or any military connections whatsoever analyze military strategy is like having a customer service rep analyze the technology of Star Trek.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I have no idea where you're getting this "eeevil romans" nonsense. The barbarians aren't exactly painted well. He's just describing exactly what happened. And there's still the fact that even with his mistake corrected, the point of the article still stands: That Hanson isn't appreciating the gravity of the situation in Iraq because his mind is still set in Ancient Warfare where guerillas never lasted long, but that the methods armies like the Romans used aren't politically viable today. But without those methods, conventional armies have yet to develop an effective counter.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2006-06-09 09:52am

You know what's really great, though? Morning Edition headlined this morning by saying that al-Qaeda in Iraq is expected to name a new leader today. LIke Zarqawi got voted out of office or something.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-06-09 10:11am

Rogue 9 wrote:You know what's really great, though? Morning Edition headlined this morning by saying that al-Qaeda in Iraq is expected to name a new leader today. LIke Zarqawi got voted out of office or something.

Honestly, who didn't see this coming? Aside from the Bush Administration, of course.

The problem is the fundamental presumption behind the United States' actions is that terrorists are a conventional enemy, and they're not. Almost all of the actions, even the moniker itself, of the "War on Terror" are based on the idea that terrorists act like a conventional military organization: invading Iraq, targeting the heads of the organization, fighting the War on Terror with overwhelming military power -- it's all fundamentally misguided.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2006-06-09 10:42am

Surlethe wrote:Honestly, who didn't see this coming? Aside from the Bush Administration, of course.

The problem is the fundamental presumption behind the United States' actions is that terrorists are a conventional enemy, and they're not. Almost all of the actions, even the moniker itself, of the "War on Terror" are based on the idea that terrorists act like a conventional military organization: invading Iraq, targeting the heads of the organization, fighting the War on Terror with overwhelming military power -- it's all fundamentally misguided.

Didn't we already make this mistake in Vietnam? Have none of the commanding Generals ever heard of Vietnam before?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-06-09 10:48am

Yogi wrote:
Surlethe wrote:Honestly, who didn't see this coming? Aside from the Bush Administration, of course.

The problem is the fundamental presumption behind the United States' actions is that terrorists are a conventional enemy, and they're not. Almost all of the actions, even the moniker itself, of the "War on Terror" are based on the idea that terrorists act like a conventional military organization: invading Iraq, targeting the heads of the organization, fighting the War on Terror with overwhelming military power -- it's all fundamentally misguided.
Didn't we already make this mistake in Vietnam? Have none of the commanding Generals ever heard of Vietnam before?

Yogi.. Vietman could have been won with overwhelming firepower.. IIRC

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-06-09 10:51am

theski wrote:Yogi.. Vietman could have been won with overwhelming firepower.. IIRC

No, simply having some competent generals would do that.

Cause, you know, it's so worthwhile to expend warm bodies taking a hill with just a number, which you then immediately abandon.

It's so bright to allow any good-will from those you're fighting for to dissolve in brutal attacks on them.

And, you know, so forth.

But the Generals learned nothing, and the politicians, all having avoided Vietnam, never knew anything. So American troops get to pay for it in blood.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-06-09 11:10am

SirNitram wrote:
theski wrote:Yogi.. Vietman could have been won with overwhelming firepower.. IIRC
No, simply having some competent generals would do that.

Cause, you know, it's so worthwhile to expend warm bodies taking a hill with just a number, which you then immediately abandon.

It's so bright to allow any good-will from those you're fighting for to dissolve in brutal attacks on them.

And, you know, so forth.

But the Generals learned nothing, and the politicians, all having avoided Vietnam, never knew anything. So American troops get to pay for it in blood.

I was a bit to brief.. I meant if the fire power was applied like it should been all along to targets in NV. they would have come to the table long ago and your point of Winning by day and losing by night is very true

1123581321 · Post by **1123581321** » 2006-06-09 11:31am

Sometimes CNN hires the stupidest talking heads in the world. It's on in the background, and the talking head was so hard up for lines while they were discussing how much damage Zarqawi's body took that she actually said, "We haven't even had confirmation which body part they took the fingerprints from." Sorry it just happened on TV, and I don't have a video.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-06-09 04:50pm

1123581321 wrote:Sometimes CNN hires the stupidest talking heads in the world. It's on in the background, and the talking head was so hard up for lines while they were discussing how much damage Zarqawi's body took that she actually said, "We haven't even had confirmation which body part they took the fingerprints from." Sorry it just happened on TV, and I don't have a video.

I saw that too, and for a moment I thought they were going to start talking about taking footprints next.