Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (188964)	6/9/2006 2:22:05 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

A NYT article said that shooting erupted and the decision was made to bomb the house. That's SOP. The word was that AMZ always wore a suicide vest and would not be taken alive. Given what happen in Mosul back last fall, when a squad of our guys busted into a house, only to have the occupants blow themselves up, killing one of our guys and wounding several others, no one's willing to chance unecessary casualties when it's evident there will is armed resistance. I had suggested that we develop some non-lethal methods of taking down a house that was surrounded, but no one could seem to make a decision on it. Hawk

To: michael97123 who wrote (188964)	6/10/2006 7:31:49 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A NYT article said that shooting erupted and the decision was made to bomb the house. I guess rememberances of how the paks may have let bin laden or zawahiri get away came to mind. I'm not sure the details are important in the decision. You have on one side, an unknown benefit of a capture weighed against the additonal risk of US casualites and the additional risk of a possible escape. None of which are objectively measurable. It's also hard to imagine that any benefit would be decisive in a victory or any loss would be catostrophic. All of which is a long way of saying. It's a toss of the coin and I wouldn't criticize or praise either decision. Your conclusion is possible not probable. If there are any iran/al quaeda things going on, shiaa iran may have insisted on the death of shiaa killer zarqawi as part keeping up the relationship. That too is possible but not probably but always fun to speculate. It wasn't truly a conclusion; it was wholly speculative based on a few known facts. One of those fun "connect the dots" exercises and creating a "Wouldn't it be bizarre if..." Fortunately, you and I can see the fun in the exercises. There are others that take the exercises too seriously. Such people take the films JFK or the DaVinci Code as approaching a documentary. Can't do much about those folks other than yell at them .... "It's fiction, you idiot. It's fiction. As in the Easter Bunny is fiction!" jttmab