WAR: AirStrike on Al-Zarqawi Safe House in Falluja

Fox News is reporting large explosions in the area of Fallujah. It is being reported that US military officials have acknowledge a strategic air strike on a safe house believed to be used by wanted Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi has claimed responsibility for several recent terrorists attacks in Iraq and the military has attributed the Nick Berg beheading to him. The terrorist group linked to the South Korean beheading is also reportedly linked to Al-Zarqawi.




[edit on 6-22-2004 by worldwatcher]

[edit on 22-6-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

[edit on 22-6-2004 by John bull 1]

[edit on 6-23-2004 by Valhall]

Yeah, we'll see if this was really his safehouse or not.
They just blew up a house on the weekend they said was his safehouse but it had only civilians in it.

This is just like the beginning of the war when they launched 50 strikes against high value targets and they all missed their targets, just civilians were killed.


[edit on 22-6-2004 by AceOfBase]

maybe they are getting close? I can't wait to see this man captured or killed, especially since he is supposed to be dead and have only one leg...shouldn't be too hard to identify him dead or alive.

My question is this, since it is believed that these are the people holding hostages, is droppping a bomb on these safe houses a good idea? Or are they likely to kill the hostages?

Would it not be wiser to launch a ground attack on the safe house, get eyes on the target before just leveling the place.

just updated the story, seems there are dead and injured, so if the safe house had hostages in them, you can only assume the worse. Now we just have to wait and see what the officials say and what the iraqi's say as to whom the victims in the airstrike were.

Sorry about doubling that up WW.

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
My question is this, since it is believed that these are the people holding hostages, is droppping a bomb on these safe houses a good idea? Or are they likely to kill the hostages?

thats what israel would do and youre right it would be better, but if they did bomb them and and i was a hostage i would feel better being killed quickly by my country than being beheaded later by some terrorists without honor.

It was noted above that bombing "safe houses" (not very safe if we bomb them...) that it may be dangerous for the captives... frankly, if I were a captive of these primitive animals, I would rather be killed in an airstrike than by having my head lopped off while being videotaped for terrorist propaganda.

Kill 'em all and let GOD sort 'em out - 101st Airborne motto

Having hostages in a safehouse is basically keeping human shields. That is a technique that is tragic but can never be allowed to succeed.

If we fail to take action on such "safe houses" due to their being hostages in there, well all that will happen is a massive kidnapping spree and placement of hostages in any location the terrorists would like not to be blown up.

Sad but that's how it's gotta be.

Id have to agree with you Theron. Id much rather be killed by my own guys who are trying to grease these terrorist bastards off the planet,cuz Id die with the knowldge Id take thier asses to hell with me, then let them behead me. Id die with the knowldge that they failed. That would make me happy enough. Though id much rather be rescued by special ops.

regardless, the use of human shields cant be tolerated. If we allow it to, they win, cuz they knmow were to scared to take human life, where they revel in it.

They have used schools, hospitals, mosques, and now "safe houses" as places where they think they are immune to retaliation.

This is not "Olly Olly In Free". No more holding back, I say.

It is about time that the Iraqi people and clerics stop hiding these people, and turn them in when they hide among them. Or else, let them suffer the consequences.

Let the women do that "lalalalalala" sound, and let the men do that thing where they cast their right arm high and forward. Drive out the terrorists. They may suffer a few casuallties at the hands of the terrorists, but not as many casualties as an air strike.

Its amazing how quickly the media jumps on the poor "civilian" causalties
when our troops responde to enemy attacks. Of course they are always civilians, Iraq has no military. They dont know how to fight but they damn sure know how to play on the media and the liberal politicians. Where is the media's concern when Americans loose there lives. The news media is a joke.

If I was a hostage, I would much rather be killed by a US bomb than by being beheaded, as several others have also mentioned. Not only that, but I'd make it a point to drive those terrorist bastards insane with my threats, like, "You know something don't you? The US IS going to KILL you and all of your friends. Once they do, then we will ALL answer to God."

Or, better yet, terrify them by talking constantly about these technologies that the US has, but keep them from knowing that you're lying about it. Just drive them further insane than they already are.

Make them think that the US is surrounding them, and will kill them ONE BY ONE until you're released unharmed. Just stuff to piss them off, and maybe provide yourself with an opportunity to break free.

I hope things aren't being blamed on a man who's been dead for two or three months already.?????

sniper, any time anything happens in Iraq the response is exactly the same.

if the US bombs a house containing 10 known terrorists the media will report that the only casualties were 5 little girls with picnic baskets, a crippled grandmother, and 2 poodles.

it's gotten quite predictable and boring already.

Originally posted by Djarums
sniper, any time anything happens in Iraq the response is exactly the same.

if the US bombs a house containing 10 known terrorists the media will report that the only casualties were 5 little girls with picnic baskets, a crippled grandmother, and 2 poodles.

it's gotten quite predictable and boring already.

The media is just reporting the facts, facts that are confirmed by the military:

An explicit account of the 0-for-50 record in strikes on high-value targets was provided by Marc Garlasco, a former DIA official who headed the joint staff's high-value targeting cell during the war. Garlasco is now a senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, and he was a primary author of the December report, "Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq."...

...In an e-mail message, Garlasco described the campaign to attack high- value targets as "abject failure." He wrote, "We failed to kill the HVTs and instead killed civilians and engendered hatred and discontent in some of the population."

Failed Air Strikes

Of course we should keep in mind that it's not really fair when a lot of these terrorist types find it smart to surround themselves with kids and women and then hightail it when word of a threat comes in.

The only scary part about that is the fact that it doesn't bother these people at all that they put their children and families in harm's way.

This al-Zarkawi guy really gets around since his magical resurrection as the clown on stage at the Berg beheading. He seems to be the excuse for any form of excessive force. Wasn't the doomed wedding party supposed to be running an al-Zarkawi safe house?