The CIA gets the scumbag behind the suicide bombing that killed seven CIA employees in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago.

Pakistan Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud dead, says state television.

Pakistan's military trying to verify reports that Taliban leader, who had been targeted by drone attacks, has been killed
military said today it was scrambling to confirm a report on state television that the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, has been killed.

The report said Mehsud, a target of CIA-directed drone attacks over the past month, has already been buried. The source of the information was not clear.

The main army spokesman, Major General Athar Abbas, told the Guardian the army was trying to verify the report. "We don't have any confirmation yet," he said, adding that the PTV information did not come from "any state agency".

An elder in the Mamuzai area of Orakzai tribal agency said he attended Mehsud's funeral on Thursday, the Associated Press reported. Speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, the elder said Mehsud died at his in-laws' home.

A Reuters report, quoting a Pakistani intelligence official, said the Taliban leader may have been fatally wounded following a 17 January drone attack on two vehicles in North Waziristan.

Mehsud's fate has been the subject of intense speculation since a drone attack on 13 January on a remote madrasa on the border between South and North Waziristan.

A Taliban spokesman admitted that Mehsud had been present in the building moments earlier, but insisted he left before the American missile struck.

Days later Mehsud quelled rumours of his demise by phoning several Pakistani journalists in Peshawar. But he was apparently targeted a second time in a drone strike on two vehicles in North Waziristan on 17 January.

Unconfirmed reports since then have suggested Hakimullah was seriously injured in that strike and was shifted to his former stomping ground of Orakzai tribal agency for treatment.

The US has carried out drone attacks in the tribal belt over the past month. The salvo seems to have been triggered by the 30 December suicide bombing of a CIA base in southern Afghanistan that killed seven Americans spies, including the base chief.

A posthumous video released later showed the bomber, a Jordanian doctor, sitting alongside Hakimullah Mehsud, indicating that the Pakistani Taliban played a leading role in the CIA's greatest humiliation for decades.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan...lah-mehsud

We've killed so many of these bastards that Heaven must be running out of virgins. Adios scumbag.

Cool. Took out one of Robert's friends.

(01-31-2010 11:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Cool. Took out one of Robert's friends.

I will miss him so much. He was a very close friend of mind. RIP.

Seriously, you are an idiot. He is NOT my friend.

(01-31-2010 11:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-31-2010 11:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Cool. Took out one of Robert's friends.

He is NOT my friend.

Exactly. Robert begged him to be but even he found Robert too stupid to associate with.

Death by drone is too quick and easy for a guy like this.......

No need to cry, Robert...

Pakistani Taliban promise proof leader is alive

Quote:But a close aide to Hakimullah Mehsud called the report of his death "government propaganda" and said he was "doing well."
"We will try in a day or two to give you proof that he is alive," the commander told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution.
The Pakistani Taliban issued similar denials after former leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed, only admitting his death after the group chose Hakimullah Mehsud as his successor three weeks later.

In the meantime, you can hedge your bets and start campaigning for your favorite martyr in waiting...

(02-01-2010 12:53 PM)I45owl Wrote:  No need to cry, Robert...

Pakistani Taliban promise proof leader is alive

Quote:But a close aide to Hakimullah Mehsud called the report of his death "government propaganda" and said he was "doing well."
"We will try in a day or two to give you proof that he is alive," the commander told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution.
The Pakistani Taliban issued similar denials after former leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed, only admitting his death after the group chose Hakimullah Mehsud as his successor three weeks later.

In the meantime, you can hedge your bets and start campaigning for your favorite martyr in waiting...

I predict his successor in the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan will be either Mohammad Maulvi Faqeer or Abdul Wali-ur-Rehman.
Hakimullah pissed off some of the more conservative Tribal factions within the Taliban, and his death might be the result of someone calling the Americans to settle a political score.

To elect the "new guy" they will call a Shura to select a leader from numerous candidates. I'd love to know where Shura will be held, because that target would justify a B-52 loaded with 2000 pound JDAMS.

(02-01-2010 09:43 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Death by drone is too quick and easy for a guy like this.......

Yea, that's the only bad thing about it.

WILD ASS PREDICTION for 2010...... This is Osma Bin Ladens last year on earth. A CIA drone will dispatch his ass the from the tepid desert to raging flames of hell. The drones are knocking the $hit out of them.

(02-01-2010 06:34 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  WILD ASS PREDICTION for 2010...... This is Osma Bin Ladens last year on earth. A CIA drone will dispatch his ass the from the tepid desert to raging flames of hell. The drones are knocking the $hit out of them.

The should have got him last year because during the campaign Obama said he knew where he was.

I guess they've gotten tired of sitting around his corpse waiting for instructions.

Pakistani Taliban confirm leader's death

(02-09-2010 12:04 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I guess they've gotten tired of sitting around his corpse waiting for instructions.

Well they've done it for for Muhammed for hundreds of years.

But didn't the child rapist leave instructions? Kill everyone?

I think the CIA has a source inside the Pakistani ISI
(their intelligence service ) that is feeding intelligence (and getting very rich in the process) as most of the Drone Targets have a $1 million plus bounty on their heads.

The Pakistani ISI has a large,Islamic Fundamentalist, Pro -Taliban faction in its ranks. We have flipped someone, and seem to know where the Taliban leadership is hanging out.

Given the number of Terrorists that have been taken out in the past year and a half, the source is living on "borrowed time" because there is a "mole hunt" going on in the ISI, and a limited number of people would have access to this data.

Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales
Is Barack Obama killing too many bad guys before the U.S. can interrogate them?

New grounds to criticize Obama?

MARC A. THIESSEN Wrote:...
The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning -- and that is putting the country at risk. As one high-ranking CIA official explained to me, in an interview for my book Courting Disaster, "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew."
...
Today, the Obama administration is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them. This may be satisfying, but it comes at a price. With every drone strike that vaporizes a senior al Qaeda leader, actionable intelligence is vaporized along with him. Dead terrorists can't tell you their plans to strike America.
...
Obama's drone campaign is costing the United States vital intelligence, and it has also exposed him to the charge of hypocrisy. The president has claimed the moral high ground in eliminating the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, saying that he rejects the "the false choice between our security and our ideals." Yet when Obama orders a Predator or Reaper strike, he is often signing the death warrant for the women and children who will be killed alongside the target -- individuals whose only sin is that they are married to, or the children of, a terrorist. Is this not a choice between security and ideals? And why is it a morally superior choice? Is it really more in keeping with American ideals to kill a terrorist and the innocent people around him, when the United States might instead spare the innocent, capture the same terrorist alive, and get intelligence from him that could potentially save many other innocent lives as well?
...
It is true that Obama's predecessor George W. Bush also reportedly increased the use of drone strikes against senior terrorist leaders toward the end of his term. But the Bush administration also maintained and exercised the CIA's capability to capture and interrogate such leaders. Obama has now dramatically escalated drone strikes while eliminating what is arguably the most important and successful intelligence programs in the war on terror. This is not a sign of Obama's seriousness. To the contrary, he is using drones as cover for his dangerous decision to eliminate the CIA's capability to take terrorist leaders in alive and question them effectively for actionable intelligence. That is nothing to praise.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was located in 2003, the United States did not send a Predator to kill him. It captured him alive and got him to give up the details of the plots he had set in motion. That decision saved thousands of lives. The fact that Obama's administration no longer does this when it locates senior terrorist leaders today means the president is voluntarily sacrificing intelligence that could protect the American people -- and that the U.S. homeland is at greater risk of a terrorist attack.

Besides that there's the issue of Miranda rights ... I think that article is on The New Republic website, but I lost the link.

But does the threat of death from above dissuade more than an all expense paid vacation to Gitmo?

(02-09-2010 10:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  But does the threat of death from above dissuade more than an all expense paid vacation to Gitmo?

Surely you've heard that capital punishment is not a good deterrent.

Besides, 70 virgins or tropical beach? Tough decision? How about 70 virgins or tropical beach with a bunch of sweaty bastards in orange suits with long beards?

(02-01-2010 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 06:34 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  WILD *** PREDICTION for 2010...... This is Osma Bin Ladens last year on earth. A CIA drone will dispatch his *** the from the tepid desert to raging flames of hell. The drones are knocking the $hit out of them.

The should have got him last year because during the campaign Obama said he knew where he was.

At least he didn't say he could care less about him like Bush.

(02-09-2010 10:10 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Dead Terrorists Tell No Tales
Is Barack Obama killing too many bad guys before the U.S. can interrogate them?

New grounds to criticize Obama?

MARC A. THIESSEN Wrote:...
The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning -- and that is putting the country at risk. As one high-ranking CIA official explained to me, in an interview for my book Courting Disaster, "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew."
...
Today, the Obama administration is no longer attempting to capture men like these alive; it is simply killing them. This may be satisfying, but it comes at a price. With every drone strike that vaporizes a senior al Qaeda leader, actionable intelligence is vaporized along with him. Dead terrorists can't tell you their plans to strike America.
...
Obama's drone campaign is costing the United States vital intelligence, and it has also exposed him to the charge of hypocrisy. The president has claimed the moral high ground in eliminating the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, saying that he rejects the "the false choice between our security and our ideals." Yet when Obama orders a Predator or Reaper strike, he is often signing the death warrant for the women and children who will be killed alongside the target -- individuals whose only sin is that they are married to, or the children of, a terrorist. Is this not a choice between security and ideals? And why is it a morally superior choice? Is it really more in keeping with American ideals to kill a terrorist and the innocent people around him, when the United States might instead spare the innocent, capture the same terrorist alive, and get intelligence from him that could potentially save many other innocent lives as well?
...
It is true that Obama's predecessor George W. Bush also reportedly increased the use of drone strikes against senior terrorist leaders toward the end of his term. But the Bush administration also maintained and exercised the CIA's capability to capture and interrogate such leaders. Obama has now dramatically escalated drone strikes while eliminating what is arguably the most important and successful intelligence programs in the war on terror. This is not a sign of Obama's seriousness. To the contrary, he is using drones as cover for his dangerous decision to eliminate the CIA's capability to take terrorist leaders in alive and question them effectively for actionable intelligence. That is nothing to praise.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was located in 2003, the United States did not send a Predator to kill him. It captured him alive and got him to give up the details of the plots he had set in motion. That decision saved thousands of lives. The fact that Obama's administration no longer does this when it locates senior terrorist leaders today means the president is voluntarily sacrificing intelligence that could protect the American people -- and that the U.S. homeland is at greater risk of a terrorist attack.

Besides that there's the issue of Miranda rights ... I think that article is on The New Republic website, but I lost the link.

Are you serious? You guys whine about him not doing anything in reguards to terrorism, yet when there is actually proof he is doing something, you claim he is at fault for taking out too many terrorists without getting info from them. What is he supposed to do? How in the hell are we supposed to interegate them? "I am sorry, would you please let us take you as prisoner so we can interogate you before we drop a bomb on your head." You guys are completely rediculous.