January 17, 2006

Oh, THOSE Terrorists: At least four terrorists killed in Pakistani air strike

Muslim extremists are always outraged when the Infidel-Christian-Zionist-Crusader dogs kill fellow Muslim extremists. So, when the U.S. launched an airstrike aimed at killing al Qaeda leader a Ayman al-Zawahiri, naturally the Islamazoids were outraged that we would have the audacity to try and kill the man responsible for murdering thousands of Americans. In fact, al Jazeera noted that Zawahiri would be a victim of the U.S. attacks, had the attacks succeeded.

Tell me this: why are civilians considered innocent when they have high-ranking members of al Qaeda over for dinner? Is it just me, or doesn't that make them guilty under the Bush doctrine of treating terrorists and those that support them the same? It's not just the Bush doctrine, though, it's common sense. In order for terrorists to survive they must have supporters. that enable them. The only innocents killed by the U.S. aristrike are the children who were forced to wash up for dinner so they could have the honor of eating dinner with members of al Qaeda. I hope their parents rot in hell.

Further, why is it that only the foreigners killed in the attack are deemed terrorists by the Pakistanis? Oh, because, by definition, there are no Pakistani terrorists. You notice how that works?

It's not just the Pakistanis, it seems that the media is quick to differentiate too. As if an IED set off by a native is somehow different than that of a foreigner. For instance, in Afghanistan, we are told, there are Taliban rebels and foreign al Qaeda terrorsts. In Iraq there are native insurgents and foreign al Qaeda terrorists.

Forbes:

At least four foreign terrorists died in the U.S. airstrike purportedly aimed at al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, the provincial government said Tuesday.

A statement by the administration of Bajur, the Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also said that 10 to 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.

Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

The statement was the first official confirmation by Pakistani authorities that foreign militants were killed in the attack, which officials have said also killed innocent civilians...

"Four or five foreign terrorists have been killed in this missile attack whose dead bodies have been taken away by their companions to hide the real reason of the attack," the statement said, citing the chief official in the Bajur region where Damadola is located.

"It is regrettable that 18 local people lost their lives in the attack, but this fact also cannot be denied, that 10-12 foreign extremists had been invited on a dinner," it said.

I'll say it again, it is not regrettable that 18 local people were killed. Good riddance. It is only regrettable the Pakistani culture is so disgustingly backward (especially in the so-called 'tribal' areas) that any women killed were probably not married to terrorists by choice, and that the terrorist scumbags probably also had innocent children.

UPDATE by Howie: Rusty and Howie posted at precisely the same time, so the editors of The Jawa Report decided just to combine their two posts.

While the spin has been how many innocents were killed in the attempt on Zawahiri, today we have confirmation of a terrorist dinner party.

CNN:A statement by the administration of Bajur, a Pakistan tribal region bordering Afghanistan, also said that 10 to 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.

Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

How Rude to miss dinner like that!
CNN : "Four or five foreign terrorists have been killed in this missile attack whose dead bodies have been taken away by their companions to hide the real reason of the attack,"
Invite a terrorist to dinner, get bombed. Sounds fair to me.

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee and Rusty Shackleford: two heads, one mind.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:08 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 723 words, total size 5 kb.

1 right on!

Posted by: reliapundit at January 17, 2006 09:56 AM (Mpp8f)

2 Damn straight it's fair. One terrorist invited for dinner and chit-chat is bad enough....but twelve?? That's when the gloves come off and the rules go out the window. It seems as if there was still some restraint since missiles were used. Next time, some good old fashion carpet bombing from a B-52 should be considered to ensure complete success.

Posted by: Graeme at January 17, 2006 10:02 AM (aAq4P)

3 This also tells us that these al-Queda terrorists are being harbored in Pakistan. I believe the US should redouble its efforts in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where some of the worst of the bad guys are hiding. We need to get them.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 17, 2006 10:08 AM (rUyw4)

4 Not one mention about the age of these "innocent children". Could they be children in the same way anti-gun people use the term, anyone as old as 19? The vast majority of the "children" killed by gunfire in the US is 15-19 year olds that happen to be gangbangers. Maybe these "kids" that were killed in Pakistan could be labled al-Quedabangers.

Posted by: Brass at January 17, 2006 11:21 AM (6TLEO)

5 Given that the MSM have already been lied to by a local employee of Getty Images, why is everyone so willing to take the Paki tribesmen's word that any "innocents" were killed? The only pictures I've seen were of burial mounds, not fresh bodies.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 17, 2006 11:35 AM (RHG+K)

6 But Pakistan's our ally, right? Right? Sure thing...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 11:44 AM (0yYS2)

7 Anyone who believes ANY of the information coming out of that area is just waiting to be duped. "Pakistani Intelligence agents" "chief official in the Bajut region" or even from an onsite reporter "my translator told me that this was what the villager wanted him to tell me" Questions about any source might include #1 why is this man telling me this ? #2 does the person believe he is telling me the truth #3 is the person telling me this in a position to know the truth. Damadola is only 4-5 miles from the borde. After 5 years in Afghanistan we should be able to field an effective company size mike force of Afghanis to go into Pakistan, with more plausible denial then a missile strike. For a 25millions reward they would go in UNARMED and pull that puppy out alive.

Posted by: john Ryan at January 17, 2006 11:57 AM (TcoRJ)

8 I said it on Friday and I'll say it again...I doubt our CIA is in the habit of sending a Hellfire into someones kitchen without good reason. Wonder if those people of Pakistan will ever take responsibility for turning their own villages into targets.

Posted by: Mad Man at January 17, 2006 12:07 PM (pXtdA)

9 Honestly, I have serious doubts if the CIA even had the right village. From accounts of past agents that I've read, the CIA is lucky to find its headquarters on a map.

Posted by: Improboulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 12:17 PM (0yYS2)

10 Maxie What's with the defeatist negative attitude?

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 12:42 PM (3aakz)

11 It's not defeatist, just realistic. I've read lots of first-hand accounts by former CIA guys, and they all pretty much agree that starting with Dhimmy Carter and ending with Bubba, the CIA was pretty much purged of anyone who was loyal to America first, rather than the Dhimmicrats, and capable of doing anything useful. Bob Baer was almost imprisoned for carrying out his duty during Bubba's regime, and it is common knowledge that the current crop of CIA honchos are generally hostile to Bush and his agenda. In short, they're putting partisanship over patriotism and are thus traitors. So no, I don't think they got him, or even got close.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 12:56 PM (0yYS2)

12 Is it just me, or do the pictures of the 'sploded house appear to have been hit by something a bit bigger than a Hellfire? I'm no military guy, but aren't Hellfires equipped with a fairly small shaped charge warhead? Could it be possible that the UAV's put a laser on the target and somone else (possibly Pakistani) put a bomb down the chute? Not to start conspiracy theories, but something just doesn't seem right.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at January 17, 2006 01:22 PM (b+HIl)

13 Maxie, I think you're right, but I also think there are some who are and have been loyal and are not being so marginalized now as they were for years previously. Look how many years it took to turn the intel agencies into the freeloaders they had become. Good intel wasn't important if we weren't going to do anything with it, so why be good at what they do? It can't be fixed all at once and I do believe there's been progress or we wouldn't hear so much screeching and squawking from their ranks. The status quo has been uspet and they just don't want to go without a fight.

Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 01:25 PM (osKlJ)

14 Rico The Hellfire packs a lot of punch - and we are not exactly talking hardened concrete bunker here. The three lil' pigs would have had a hard time - but not a Hellfire.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:37 PM (3aakz)

15 Also, there could have been a quite spectacular secondary explosion. In the picture the NYT put up, the artillery shell had to come from somewhere, why not a weapons cache in that village?

Posted by: Brass at January 17, 2006 02:16 PM (6TLEO)

16 Point noted Brass - secondarys are typically an indicator of success.

Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 03:05 PM (3aakz)

17 There's still a strong obstructionist element within the CIA, and unfortunately still plenty of lawyers to screw things up.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 05:27 PM (0yYS2)

18 We have no right to bomb a house which there may be, and I quote "a 50/50 chance" of a terrorist being present. Villagers in the area buried 15 of their friends and family because of the attack, including children. More recent Intel suggests that no actual terrorists were killed. Even though it was originally said terrorists were killed, looking deeping suggests this is untrue. What is a bigger deal, having a foreign extreemest in Pakistan that posed no imminent threat, or pissing of an entire country? email thatshortdankid@hotmail.com

Posted by: dan at January 18, 2006 09:01 PM (dpNrV)

19 Err uh that's a 100% chance that there were terrorists present. The question was which ones and how many did we get?

Posted by: Howie at January 18, 2006 09:25 PM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
30kb generated in CPU 0.0184, elapsed 0.1354 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1279 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.