Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

randome

(34,845 posts)

6. That would, of course, be preferable.

Reply to Recursion (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:34 AM

Feb 2013

But I think the reason we sometimes launch an attack at 'festivities' like weddings, funerals, etc. is because the one(s) we're after are very careful about never being in an area that is not surrounded by civilians.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(I should know better than to start this.) Could POTUS order an infantry assault on my bunker [View all] Recursion Feb 2013 OP

Agreed. The Imperial Presidency is the problem MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #1

'Holed up in a bunker' versus 'Attending a meeting of terrorists'. randome Feb 2013 #2

That's a fair point Recursion Feb 2013 #3

That would, of course, be preferable. randome Feb 2013 #6

I agree; that's the one time we know where they are Recursion Feb 2013 #7

An artillery barrage on a WTO meeting would be far more effective. Zorra Feb 2013 #4

That and the Pentagon and all of Langley. Arctic Dave Feb 2013 #8

U.S. Citizen holed up in an Al Qaeda compound in Waziristan, you that stupid you get what lonestarnot Feb 2013 #5