ISIS leader al-Baghdadi killed

[MigL]

US special forces staged a raid near the Syria/Turkey border and flushed out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who then blew himself up with explosives when trapped. Apparently DNA confirmation of his identity is now possible 'in the field' and much quicker than the usual couple of weeks it takes for criminal cases. Obviously there is a need to be sure, as he has been 'reportedly' killed several times before.

D Trump is either trying to draw attention from his escalating problems, or still trying to take wind from B Obama's sails ( the Osama bin-Laden takedown ), as apparently he posted a ( staged ) picture in the Situation Room from the wrong time; he was playing golf during the actual raid.

Congratulations to American Special Forces and Intelligence Services. Also, our Allies in the area who supplied the intelligence; you know, those same people D Trump deserted and left to be slaughtered by the Turkish offensive two weeks ago.

[iNow]

There’s always a tweet... or 2:

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

US special forces staged a raid near the Syria/Turkey border and flushed out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who then blew himself up with explosives when trapped. Apparently DNA confirmation of his identity is now possible 'in the field' and much quicker than the usual couple of weeks it takes for criminal cases. Obviously there is a need to be sure, as he has been 'reportedly' killed several times before.

D Trump is either trying to draw attention from his escalating problems, or still trying to take wind from B Obama's sails ( the Osama bin-Laden takedown ), as apparently he posted a ( staged ) picture in the Situation Room from the wrong time; he was playing golf during the actual raid.

Congratulations to American Special Forces and Intelligence Services. Also, our Allies in the area who supplied the intelligence; you know, those same people D Trump deserted and left to be slaughtered by the Turkish offensive two weeks ago.

Feigning business as usual...didn't want to add any undue risk for those in the raid...and yet some Democrats will act like he didn't have a key role!

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Feigning business as usual...didn't want to add any undue risk for those in the raid...and yet some Democrats will act like he didn't have a key role!

I can't tell. Was this post tongue in cheek?

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I can't tell. Was this post tongue in cheek?

I wished I knew. Things are so weird. It should be noted that AFAIK the precise timing is still not clear and thus it has not been established whether Trump was actually absent during the operation.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I can't tell. Was this post tongue in cheek?

I heard they considered having a body double  golf...but Trump said no...didn't want to take the risk...Pelosi might suspect something was up...so he took one for the Team...went out on that course...and golfed like he never had before! (except exactly as before...knowing Democrats were watching)

[swansont]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I heard they considered having a body double  golf...but Trump said no...didn't want to take the risk...Pelosi might suspect something was up...so he took one for the Team...went out on that course...and golfed like he never had before! (except exactly as before...knowing Democrats were watching)

This fantastic scenario is moot. It rained like hell in the morning. One could have easily used wet conditions as an excuse.

[iNow]

I’m glad we got this guy. I’m disappointed so many operational details were shared in the press conference. I suspect all of the trash talking will also cause remaining ISIS members to organize strikes they would not have otherwise (unnecessary deaths). It seems likely too Trump will use this as a reason to wash his hands of the region and let chaos continue to brew. 

Also, there’s always a tweet... this time for golf: https://www.sbnation.com/golf/2017/3/27/15073086/donald-trump-tweets-barack-obama-golf

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I heard they considered having a body double  golf...but Trump said no...didn't want to take the risk...Pelosi might suspect something was up...so he took one for the Team...went out on that course...and golfed like he never had before! (except exactly as before...knowing Democrats were watching)

I'm confused by the subterfuge. Was Trump's concern that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would somehow know Trump's whereabouts and would infer an imminent attack if Trump were not golfing, or was Trump concerned that Pelosi would somehow know Trump's whereabouts and would infer an imminent attack if Trump were not golfing, thus allowing her to, I don't even know what.

[Curious layman]

Meet the new boss. Abdullah Qardash, also known as 'the destroyer'

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

I can't tell. Was this post tongue in cheek?

 

54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm confused by the subterfuge. Was Trump's concern that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would somehow know Trump's whereabouts and would infer an imminent attack if Trump were not golfing, or was Trump concerned that Pelosi would somehow know Trump's whereabouts and would infer an imminent attack if Trump were not golfing, thus allowing her to, I don't even know what.

I was trying to leave no doubt...and making fun of the fact that Trump bypassed the protocol of informing Pelosi  prior to the raid...claiming security reasons.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

I was trying to leave no doubt...and making fun of the fact that Trump bypassed the protocol of informing Pelosi  prior to the raid...claiming security reasons.

I'm sorry. Just now having my first espresso of the day. 🤕

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Curious layman said:

Meet the new boss. Abdullah Qardash, also known as 'the destroyer'

 

I wonder if it would be better to leave the leaders alive and take out the infantry first because one can familiarise oneself over the longer term with the tactics of the group. Killing leaders means having to learn the new strategy all over again.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I wonder if it would be better to leave the leaders alive and take out the infantry first because one can familiarise oneself over the longer term with the tactics of the group. Killing leaders means having to learn the new strategy all over again.

Yeah. Always someone ready to step up...probably the angriest one

[Curious layman]

 

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I wonder if it would be better to leave the leaders alive and take out the infantry first because one can familiarise oneself over the longer term with the tactics of the group. Killing leaders means having to learn the new strategy all over again.

I agree, it's like the Mexican cartels, you take out a leader and the next leader is even more violent than the last one. In the long run you make it worse. It's not a very good strategy. Maybe better to focus on the leaders key men instead.

[iNow]

They’re not mutually exclusive. Addressing both seems the better choice 

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

They’re not mutually exclusive. Addressing both seems the better choice 

Killing the leaders seems to just make a mess worse. Think Gadaffi and Saddam. I'm suggesting a different approach. The benefit of killing the leader first seems to be not very productive. It's just a temporary morale boost to kill a leader and makes good print.

Edited October 29, 2019 by StringJunky

[MigL]

IIRC the approach that seemed to work with M Gaddafi was the air strikes by a squadron of F-111, flying out of England, that demonstrated just how quickly R Reagan could take him out, if he so chose.
He quited down very quickly after that.

[Airbrush]

Trump boasted, in the manner of a true dictator or mob boss, that Baghdadi died "like a dog" and "like a coward", as he ran "whimpering, crying, and screaming."

1.  Trump does not like dogs.  He compares the worst of his enemies to dogs.  In rallies he says he will never be seen walking a dog.  Problem is a K-9 member of the squad, that chased Baghdadi, was injured (and is expected a full recovery), so Trump had to say something nice about dogs.  He said it was a beautiful and talented dog.  Then he said "Nobody was hurt" as though the beautiful, talented dog he was just admiring, was not a "someone."

2.  I disagree with calling Baghdadi a "coward" because it is not easy always wearing a suicide vest in your daily life.  It is very tough to blow yourself up.  That is an evil act but not cowardly.

3.  There was no sound, so Trump could not hear anything.  We are expected to take his word that Baghdadi ran "whimpering, crying, and screaming ALL the way?"  I think this is another example of Trump's psychological projection.  "Whimpering, crying, and screaming" is what Trump would do.

"The president seemed to take particular joy in recounting gruesome, gory details, citing the Islamic State beheadings of Americans in orange jumpsuits and a need to convince others to not join forces.   The president said Baghdadi’s body had been mutilated beyond recognition and that it took a sophisticated test to prove it was him. He called Baghdadi’s followers “losers” and “frightened puppies.”

“He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering, screaming and crying all the way,” Trump said.  Later, he said it again. “He died like a dog, he died like a coward, he was whimpering, screaming and crying,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whimpering-screaming-and-crying-a-beautiful-dog-trumps-bombastic-account-of-the-baghdadi-raid/2019/10/27/c50c3444-f8cc-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

Edited October 29, 2019 by Airbrush

[iNow]

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Killing the leaders seems to just make a mess worse. Think Gadaffi and Saddam. I'm suggesting a different approach. The benefit of killing the leader first seems to be not very productive. It's just a temporary morale boost to kill a leader and makes good print.

21 hours ago, Curious layman said:

I agree, it's like the Mexican cartels, you take out a leader and the next leader is even more violent than the last one. In the long run you make it worse. It's not a very good strategy. Maybe better to focus on the leaders key men instead.

This was a key leader. Not taking the opportunity to remove them from the theater doesn’t make any sense to me. Sure, this is a hydra and killing one head won’t stop the others, but there are obvious benefits. 

First, you create a power vacuum. You have remaining Lieutenants who will quarrel with each other, fighting amongst themselves to become the next number one. They start taking each other out while we sit back and watch.

As they battle for control, they’ll also be disorganized and active plans will be disrupted. They’ll be distracted and slowed down. New leaders will want to execute on their own plans, but will need to first generate support and campaign for those... another thing which slows them down and delays them... giving us even more time to continue putting points on the board and gaining the upper hand.

Those who remain at the top will also be more afraid that they’re next, that the US is now actively targeting them and so they will not be as bold or open about their activities. In short, their life is harder due to fear. We disrupt them with their own weapon: terrorism. Their freedom of movement is restricted because they’re no longer a mere underling who can more easily hide. 

There is indeed a morale boost, but beyond that there’s a huge propaganda victory. People really do care about who’s winning and who’s losing. It affects recruitment. It changes the calculus for who’s going to abandon their lives and sign up to become part of the cause. It affects which side they choose. At both the individual level and the nation level, it affects who chooses to be an ally versus a foe.

A lot of it is symbolic, and that’s hugely important, but there are some pretty obvious tactical and strategic benefits to these actions, too.

I can understand wanting to focus on the lower tiers of these terroist networks, but I can’t wrap my head around why anyone wouldn’t ALSO focus on the leaders... the proverbial marionettes controlling those puppets. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Yes but it was a big dog, a very very big dog, the biggest dog we had and it chased him down the longest deepest tunnel of all and it ran fast faster than the other dogs...  

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This was a key leader. Not taking the opportunity to remove them from the theater doesn’t make any sense to me. Sure, this is a hydra and killing one head won’t stop the others, but there are obvious benefits. 

First, you create a power vacuum. You have remaining Lieutenants who will quarrel with each other, fighting amongst themselves to become the next number one. They start taking each other out while we sit back and watch.

As they battle for control, they’ll also be disorganized and active plans will be disrupted. They’ll be distracted and slowed down. New leaders will want to execute on their own plans, but will need to first generate support and campaign for those... another thing which slows them down and delays them... giving us even more time to continue putting points on the board and gaining the upper hand.

Those who remain at the top will also be more afraid that they’re next, that the US is now actively targeting them and so they will not be as bold or open about their activities. In short, their life is harder due to fear. We disrupt them with their own weapon: terrorism. Their freedom of movement is restricted because they’re no longer a mere underling who can more easily hide. 

There is indeed a morale boost, but beyond that there’s a huge propaganda victory. People really do care about who’s winning and who’s losing. It affects recruitment. It changes the calculus for who’s going to abandon their lives and sign up to become part of the cause. It affects which side they choose. At both the individual level and the nation level, it affects who chooses to be an ally versus a foe.

A lot of it is symbolic, and that’s hugely important, but there are some pretty obvious tactical and strategic benefits to these actions, too.

I can understand wanting to focus on the lower tiers of these terroist networks, but I can’t wrap my head around why anyone wouldn’t ALSO focus on the leaders... the proverbial marionettes controlling those puppets. 

This makes no sense. You either kill the leader or you don't, if that's what you mean by focus. Killing the strategist means you are then looking for the new strategist and until that's known much time is lost and damage ensues. We'll have agree to differ I think.

[iNow]

What do you suggest instead?

Leave them in charge, coordinating more attacks and directing their underlings, maybe offer them a cuppa tea? And why, because others may take their place later? 

I trust that you have your reasons. I don’t understand them and I’d like to. 
 

[MigL]

Sounds like 'the devil you know is better than his replacement' kind of thinking, Stringy.

Would you also apply that to D Trump ?

[Curious layman]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Disagree, this war on terror reminds me of the war on drugs. All the leaders of the cartels are eventually arrested/killed, but the cartels have become stronger, bigger, more violent. They've learnt and adapted and become harder to stop.

Its the same with the terrorists, they just adapt- 'lone wolves'

Ive no idea what to do instead, but this just seems counter productive and pointless.